Ex Parte SUZUKI

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 18, 2019

14293553 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/293,553 06/02/2014
154930 7590
XSENSUS LLP
200 Daingerfield Road
Suite 201
Alexandria, VA 22314
06/20/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Teruhiko SUZUKI
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10845US03CON 1730
EXAMINER
BAILEY, FREDERICK D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2019 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):
anaquadocketing@Xsensus.com
Arlene.Hudgens@Xsensus.com
Faith.Baggett@xsensus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte TERUHIKO SUZUKI 1
Appeal 2018-001160
Application 14/293,553
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR. and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant is appealing the final rejection of claims 2-16 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We reverse.
Introduction
The invention is directed to:
1 Appellant identifies Gemalto SA as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief
3.
2 An Oral Hearing was held June 6, 2019.
Appeal 2018-001160
Application 14/293,553
[ A ]n encoding device and a method, a decoding device
and a method, an editing device and a method, a storage medium,
and a program which are preferably used for
transmitting/receiving image information (bitstreams ),
compressed by motion compensation and orthogonal
transformation, such as a discrete cosine transform or Karhunen-
Loeve transform, through a network medium, such as satellite
broadcast, cable television broadcast, or the Internet, or are
preferably used for processing image information on a storage
medium, such as an optical disk, a magnetic disk, or a flash
memory.
Specification 1.
Illustrative Claim
2. An encoding device, comprising:
circuitry configured to:
generate buffer characteristics information, which includes a
plurality of combinations of buffer size information and bit rate information
as criteria for determining whether a bitstream is decodable using a decoder
buffer size and a bit rate, the buffer size information indicating a required
buffer size of a buffer that stores the bitstream during decoding of the
bitstream and the bit rate information indicating an input bit rate of the
buffer; and
encode an input signal to generate the bit stream including the
generated buff er characteristics information.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 15 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Van den Branden (U.S. Patent 6,011,868;
issued January 4, 2000). Final Action 2--4.
2
Appeal 2018-001160
Application 14/293,553
Claims 6, 11 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Van den Branden and Koda (U.S. Patent 6,408,030 Bl;
issued June 18, 2002). Final Action 5-6.
Claims 3, 8 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Van den Branden and Li (U.S. Patent Application
Publication 2003/0118102 Al; published June 26, 2003). Final Action 6.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Briefs (filed April 3, 2017, May 19, 2017 and July 11,
2017), the Reply Brief (filed November 13, 2017), the Final Action (mailed
November 23, 2016) and the Answer (mailed September 29, 2017), for the
respective details.
35 U.S.C. § I02(b) and I03(a) rejection
Appellant contends, "[a]t no point does van den Branden teach or
suggest encoding an input signal to generate the bit stream including the
generated buffer characteristics information, which is generated by the
encoder and includes a plurality of combinations of buffer size information
and bit rate information, as required by claim 2." Appeal Brief 4. The
Examiner finds, "giving the claims a broadest reasonable interpretation" that
Van den Branden teaches:
[A] bitstream quality analyzer analyzes information provided by
a video decoder and calculates various metrics allowing the user
to determine the quality of the encoding process where based on
decoded parameters obtained from decoding the elementary
video bitstream to the IVLC [Inverse Variable Length Coding]
level ( where since the information is produced from the bitstream
it is inherent that it was produced at the encoder).
3
Appeal 2018-001160
Application 14/293,553
Answer 2, (citing Van den Branden Figures 1, 2, 3, 5, 6; column 1, lines 42-
65; column 3, line 60-column 4, line 3; column 8, lines 53-62 and column
9, lines 6-8, 24--33.).
Van den Branden discloses in regard to Figure 5:
The demultiplexer 180 separates the lv1PEG bitstream mw
various elementary bitstreams (audio1 video, and/or multiple
audio or multiple video elementary bitstreams) and provides the
video elementary bitstream that is to be monitored to the
bitstream quality analyzer 190. The bitstream gualitv analyzer
J.2f!J?.~I~.t~ .. Im~i...d:~f.mi.~~..1Jw . .:v..i.ct~.QJ~L~n1~nt.0:r.Y..h11.§!ItmnJQ __ t~1rn,f1
various parameters and perfonn varying levels of quality analysis
on that bitstream. Information concerning the monitored Yv1P EG
video elementary bitstream, as we11 as varying fovels of quality
analysis1 are displayed to a user via a Graphical 1-Iser Interface
((TUI) 200. In addition, through the GUI 200~ the user is able to
select the level of monitoring and quality analysis to control the
bitstream (iualitv analyzer 190. 1 ,/ •
Van den Branden, column 5, lines 41-55 (emphasis added').
Appellant contends, "while the existence of an encoder may be
inherent to create the bitstream, what is not inherent is for the encoder to
include, in the encoded bitstream, buffer characteristics information for the
sequence of the bitstream, which includes a plurality of combinations of
buffer size information and bit rate information." Reply Brief 2.
Appellant further contends Van den Branden "simply describes metrics such
as a 'metric of buffer fullness' or 'an actual bit rate based on the amount of
compressed video data received by the decoder' that are calculated after
decoding the video signal and may be presented in a GUI so that a user can
visually assess the quality of the bitstream" and, therefore, "[ s ]ince these
parameters are dependent on a result of encoding the signal, van den
4
Appeal 2018-001160
Application 14/293,553
Branden fails to teach or suggest that any of these parameters are included in
an encoded bitstream that is decoded by the decoder." Reply Brief 2.
We do not agree with the Examiner's findings and we find
Appellant's arguments persuasive. Van den Branden does not teach an
encoded bitstream containing buffer characteristics information for the
sequence of the bitstream including a plurality of combinations of buffer size
information and bit rate information as required by independent claims 2, 7
and 12. See Reply Brief 2. Instead, Van de Branden teaches an encoder that
revises its characteristics information according to specification provided by
a decoder to process an encoded data stream. See Reply Brief 3. We reverse
the anticipation rejection of independent claims 2, 7 and 12, as well as,
dependent claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 14 and 15. Further, we do not find that a prima
facie case of obviousness was properly established by the Examiner to
address the noted deficiency of Van den Branden and accordingly, we
reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 15.
See Final Action 3-4 ("where an encoder is inherent and where determining
whether the bitstream is decodable from the estimated the size of the
decoder buffer, and the encoder estimated the bit rate as disclosed in Van
den Branden would have been understood to one of ordinary skill in the art
from these teachings in van de Branden.").
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
We find that neither Koda nor Li cures the noted deficiencies of Van
den Branden because none of the cited references, either alone or in
combination, discloses encoded bitstream containing buffer characteristics
information for the sequence of the bitstream including a plurality of
combinations of buffer size information and bit rate information as required
5
Appeal 2018-001160
Application 14/293,553
by independent claims 2, 7 and 12. See Final Action 5---6. Subsequently, we
reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 3, 6, 8, 11, 13 and
16.
DECISION
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 103(a) rejections of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9,
10, 12, 14 and 15 are reversed.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 3, 6, 8, 11, 13 and 16 are
reversed.
REVERSED
6