Ex Parte Sugio et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 26, 2017

14087391 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/087,391 11/22/2013 Toshiyasu SUGIO 2013-1678 1357 52349 7590 06/28/2017 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK L.L.P. 1030 15th Street, N.W. Suite 400 East Washington, DC 20005-1503 EXAMINER LE, PETER D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2488 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/28/2017 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): ddalecki@wenderoth.com eoa@ wenderoth. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TOSHIYASU SUGIO, TAKAHIRO NISHI, YOUJI SHIBAHARA, KYOKO TANIKAWA, HISAO SASAI, TORU MATSUNOBU, and KENGO TERADA Appeal 2017-008196 Application 14/087,391 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 2—10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2017-008196 Application 14/087,391 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present patent application concerns “providing] a moving picture coding method and a moving picture decoding method for allowing an increase in the processing speed of coding and decoding a moving picture using inter prediction.” Specification 2:18—21, filed November 22, 2013 (“Spec.”). Claim 2 illustrates the claimed subject matter: 2. A decoding method for decoding an image from a bitstream, the decoding method comprising: deriving one or more candidates for a motion vector predictor used to decode a motion vector of a current block in the image; selecting the motion vector predictor out of the one or more candidates using an index included in the bitstream; decoding the motion vector of the current block using the selected motion vector predictor; and decoding the current block using the decoded motion vector, wherein the deriving includes: generating a first candidate for the motion vector predictor from a first motion vector of each of one or more first adjacent blocks that are spatially adjacent to the current block in a leftward direction; and generating a second candidate for the motion vector predictor from a second motion vector of each of one or more second adjacent blocks that are spatially adjacent to the current block in an upward direction, and wherein the generating of the second candidate includes: determining for each of the one or more first adjacent blocks whether or not the first adjacent block is inter-predicted; and scaling a scalable second motion vector to generate the second candidate, the scalable second motion vector 2 Appeal 2017-008196 Application 14/087,391 belonging to one of the one or more second adjacent blocks, when each of the one or more first adjacent blocks is not inter-predicted, wherein the scalable second motion vector belonging to the one of the one or more second adjacent blocks is not scaled when at least one of the first adjacent blocks is inter-predicted, the first adjacent blocks being spatially adjacent to the current block in the leftward direction, and the second adjacent blocks being spatially adjacent to the current block in the upward direction. Appeal Brief 14, filed June 27, 2016 (“App. Br.”). REJECTIONS Claims 2-4 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness- type double patenting as unpatentable over various combinations of claims 1—3 of Sugio et al. (US 9,066,109 B2; June 23, 2015), claims 1—3 of Sugio et al. (US 8,942,288 B2; January 27, 2015), and Kondo et al. (US 2008/0063075 Al; March 13, 2008). Claim 10 stands rejected under 35U.S.C. § 112 12 as indefinite. Claims 2-4 and 6—9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kondo. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kondo and Park (US 2010/0290527 Al; November 18, 2010). Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kondo and ISO/IEC 14496-10, Information Technology — Coding of Audio-Visual Objects — Part 10: Advanced Video Coding (2004). 3 Appeal 2017-008196 Application 14/087,391 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments. With the exception of the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection, we disagree with Appellants that the Examiner erred and adopt the Examiner’s reasoning, findings, and conclusions set forth in the appealed action and the Answer. Appellants have waived arguments Appellants have failed to timely or adequately present. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv), 41.41(b)(2). Indefiniteness Rejection Claim 10 recites “determining . . . whether or not the first adjacent block is available to be used,” “when each of the one or more first adjacent blocks is available to be used,” and “when at least one of the first adjacent blocks is inter-predicted and available to be used.” App. Br. 10 (emphases added). The Examiner found these limitations render claim 10 indefinite because the recited blocks “are understood to be” and “inherently . . . are” always available for use. Final Office Action 20-21, mailed February 5, 2016 (“Final Act.”); Answer 38, mailed November 4, 2016 (“Ans.”). Appellants contend these limitations are sufficiently clear when considered in light of claim 10 as a whole. App. Br. 7. We agree with Appellants. As an initial matter, the Examiner’s indefmiteness rejection rests on the findings that the “first adjacent blocks” are “understood to be” and “inherently . . . are” always available for use. Final Act. 20—21; Ans. 38. But the Examiner has provided no persuasive evidence or reasoning to support these findings. See Final Act. 20-21; Ans. 38. Even if the Examiner had provided sufficient support for these findings, 4 Appeal 2017-008196 Application 14/087,391 the fact that “first adjacent blocks” are “understood to be” and “inherently . . . are” always available for use would not alone render claim 10 indefinite. Although one of ordinary skill in the art might consider some of claim 10’s limitations superfluous if the recited blocks are always available, the Examiner has not established one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the scope of the claim in this situation. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2173.05 (9th ed. 2014) (“[A] claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear.”). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s indefmiteness rejection of claim 10. Anticipation, Obviousness, and Double Patenting Rejections Claim 2 recites in relevant part the following: generating a first candidate for the motion vector predictor from a first motion vector of each of one or more first adjacent blocks that are spatially adjacent to the current block in a leftward direction; and generating a second candidate for the motion vector predictor from a second motion vector of each of one or more second adjacent blocks that are spatially adjacent to the current block in an upward direction, scaling a scalable second motion vector to generate the second candidate, the scalable second motion vector belonging to one of the one or more second adjacent blocks, when each of the one or more first adjacent blocks is not inter-predicted, wherein the scalable second motion vector belonging to the one of the one or more second adjacent blocks is not scaled when at least one of the first adjacent blocks is inter-predicted, the first adjacent blocks being spatially adjacent to the current block in 5 Appeal 2017-008196 Application 14/087,391 the leftward direction, and the second adjacent blocks being spatially adjacent to the current block in the upward direction. App. Br. 14. Appellants contend Kondo fails to disclose the “scaling a scalable second motion vector” and “wherein” limitations reproduced above. See id. at 8—11. First, Appellants argue Kondo’s paragraph 203 and Figures 30—32 do not disclose that a motion vector of an adjacent block containing ether pixel B or C (i.e., a second adjacent block that is spatially adjacent to the current block BL1 in the upward direction) is scaled when an adjacent block containing pixel A (i.e., a first adjacent block that is spatially adjacent to the current block BL1 in the leftward direction) is not inter-predicted. Id. at 9. We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive. In the Answer the Examiner cited Kondo’s paragraphs 244 and 247 and Figure 35A as additional evidence that Kondo discloses the “scaling a scalable second motion vector” limitation. See Ans. 39. Figure 35A and its accompanying description disclose that pixel block A “is not inter-predicted” as required by claim 2. In particular, Kondo discloses that “[i]n Fig. 35A, a block containing pixel A is intrapicture coded.'” Kondo 1226 (emphasis added). See also id. Fig. 35A (including the word “intra” in the block for pixel A). Kondo also teaches using the median or average values of the motion vectors in pixels B and C when A is interpredicted. See id. ]Hf 227, 244, 247. Appellants have not addressed these portions of Kondo. See App. Br. 8—11. Second, Appellants contend Kondo discloses deriving a median value, not “scaling” as recited in the claim. App. Br. 10. According to Appellants, “the term ‘scaling’ . . . refer[s] to a linear transformation that increases or 6 Appeal 2017-008196 Application 14/087,391 decreases an object by a scale factor,” whereas “the term ‘median’ [refers] to ... a number separating the higher half of a data sample from the lower half.” Id. We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive. Appellants have not provided any evidence or reasoning to support Appellants’ contention that “scaling” is limited “to a linear transformation that increases or decreases an object by a scale factor.” Id. at 10. Appellants’ written description indicates that in this context “scaling” encompasses simply increasing or decreasing the magnitude of a motion vector. See, e.g., Spec. 16:16—17 (“Scaling processing is processing of increasing and decreasing the magnitude of a motion vector.”). As found by the Examiner, Kondo’s paragraph 247 discloses increasing or decreasing the value of a motion vector. For example, Kondo discloses “calculating a motion vector used in the direct mode by scaling a motion vector referred to using a time interval between pictures is explained, however, a calculation may be performed by multiplying by a constant number.” Kondo 1247. Kondo also discloses “when [the] motion vectors contained in blocks having pixels A, B, C respectively referring to a same picture of which reference index is smallest are plural... a motion vector obtained from averaging these motion vectors may be used as a motion vector of the block.” Id. Appellants have not specifically addressed this paragraph of Kondo. See App. Br. 8—11. Third, Appellants argue “the Examiner appears to take the position that. . . claim 2 does not explicitly define the ‘the first adjacent blocks’ to be spatially adjacent to the current block in the leftward direction.” App. Br. 10. The Examiner clarified in the Answer that this is not the case. The Examiner found pixel block A is adjacent to the left of the current block 7 Appeal 2017-008196 Application 14/087,391 BL1 as required by the claim, see Ans. 39, and Kondo supports this finding. Kondo’s Figure 35A shows pixel block A to the left of block B1 and pixel blocks B and C above block Bl. See Kondo Fig. 35A. Thus, Kondo discloses “one or more first adjacent blocks that are spatially adjacent to the current block in a leftward direction” as recited in claim 2. Fourth, Appellants assert “the teachings of Kondo are entirely different from the features required by the presently claimed invention.” Id. at 11. This conclusory statement does not explain why Kondo fails to disclose the claimed invention. Simply asserting that Kondo’s teachings are “entirely different” from the claimed invention does not establish the Examiner erred. Cf. In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”). For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2. Because Appellants have not provided separate, persuasive patentability arguments for the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 3, 4, and 6—9 or obviousness rejection of claims 5 and 10, see App. Br. 11, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims. Appellants’ arguments concerning the Examiner’s double patenting rejection rely on Appellants’ arguments for claim 2. See id. at 12. We find these arguments unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s double patenting rejection of claims 2—A. 8 Appeal 2017-008196 Application 14/087,391 DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claim 10. We affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 2-4 and 6—9 and obviousness rejections of claims 5 and 10. We also affirm the Examiner’s double patenting rejection of claims 2—\. Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal, we affirm the Examiner’s decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 9