Ex Parte Tanner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 27, 2017

13323949 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 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. 13/323,949 12/13/2011 Jason D. Tanner P39811 8650 104917 7590 10/31 James J. Lynch LYNCH LAW PATENT GROUP PACIFIC NW OFFICE 10395 SW CYNTHIA STREET BEAVERTON, OR 97008 EXAMINER SECHSER, JILL D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/31/2017 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): inteldocs_docketing @ cpaglobal. com mwarinner@lynchpatents.com j lynch @ lynchpatents. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JASON D. TANNER and HONG JIANG Appeal 2017-005732 Application 13/323,949 Technology Center 2400 Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1—29, all claims currently pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2017-005732 Application 13/323,949 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is directed to variable block sized hierarchical motion estimation. Spec. 1—2. Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: at a video encoder, downsampling a current frame to generate a downsampled current frame', specifying a downsampled block in the downsampled current frame, the downsampled block corresponding to a block of the current frame and the downsampled block comprising only pixels of the current frame that have been downsampled to generate the downsampled current frame; specifying a source block associated with the downsampled block, the source block being larger than the downsampled block; and performing a motion search in a downsampled reference frame using the source block. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8—10, 12—14, 16—18, 20—25, and 27—29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Suzuki et al. (US 2006/0188024 Al, published Aug. 24, 2006) (“Suzuki”) and Lim et al. (US 6,295,320 Bl, issued Sept. 25, 2001) (“Lim”). Final Act. 5.1 1 The Examiner’s statement of rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8—10, 12—14, 16—18, 20-25, and 27—29 identifies that the claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Suzuki and Lim. Final Act. 5. However, the Examiner’s rejection is correctly a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 2 Appeal 2017-005732 Application 13/323,949 Claims 3,7, 11, 15, 19, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suzuki, Lim, and Song (US 2006/0008008 Al, published Jan. 12, 2006). Final Act. 16. ANALYSIS Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Suzuki and Lim teaches or suggests “performing a motion search in a downsampled reference frame using the source block,” as recited in independent claim 1, and commensurately recited in independent claims 9, 17, and 24? The Examiner finds Suzuki teaches performing a motion search in a downsampled reference frame using a downsampled block. Final Act. 6 (citing Suzuki, Figs. 7—9, 85, 88). Appellants argue that the disputed claim limitation requires performing the motion search at the downsampled level as opposed to the full resolution level. Br. 10. Appellants contend the Examiner “has not specifically cited to what content of Suzuki is being cited for the ‘downsampled reference frame,’” and rather that the Examiner’s citations “appear to clearly refer to operations at a full 16x16 scale equivalent to the full scale of the Suzuki 16x16 target block to be encoded 202.” Br. 11—12. Appellants further argue “Suzuki performs the operations of small block motion estimator 163 of Suzuki only after the blocks have been modified by enhanced block generator 154 back to full scale.” Br. 12. § 103(a) as being obvious over Suzuki and Lim, and the Examiner analyzes it as an obviousness rejection. See Final Act. 5—17. As Appellants do not dispute treatment of the rejection under § 103(a), we find the Examiner’s mislabeling the heading of the rejection to be a harmless error. 3 Appeal 2017-005732 Application 13/323,949 We are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellants’ argument. Initially, we note Appellants’ Specification describes “downsampling” alternatively as downscaling, providing an example of a 16x16 MB including four 8x8 sub-blocks being “downsampled by a factor of two to generate a corresponding downsampled (M/2)x(N/2) block 216 in downsampled current frame,” where a downsampled block for a 16x16 block is an 8x8 block. Spec. 121. The claimed downsampling, in light of Appellants’ Specification, encompasses resulting in smaller blocks or divided blocks (i.e., from a 16x16 block downsampled to an 8x8 block by dividing by a factor of two). This description of “downsampling” is consistent with the Examiner’s analysis, including dividing a 16x16 block into 4x4 small blocks. See Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 2—3. As cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 6; Ans. 2—3), Suzuki teaches a “block divider 162 divides the enhanced block 127 into sixteen 4x4 small blocks 112a” and “[e]ach of the divided small blocks is sequentially input to a small block predictor 152 as a set of one 4x4 small blocks 112a.” Suzuki 1 85 (emphasis added). Suzuki further teaches the “small block predictor 152 is composed of a small block motion estimator 163 detecting a motion vector 115 of a small block 112.'” Suzuki | 86 (emphasis added). Specifically, Suzuki discloses “a detecting method of a motion vector 115al of the 4x4 small block 112al positioned at the left-upper end in the 16- divided 4x4 small blocks” using the “small block motion estimator 163 [that] sets a search range 181 al on the previously decoded frame 520.” Suzuki | 88. Likewise, previously decoded frame 520 is divided into 4x4 blocks. Suzuki | 88, Fig. 9. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Suzuki teaches that the small blocks are input to a small block motion 4 Appeal 2017-005732 Application 13/323,949 estimator which sets a search range on the downsampled previously decoded frame, and thereby that Suzuki teaches that “the motion search is performed in a downsampled reference frame using the source block and not on a 16x16 block as argued by” Appellants. Ans. 2—3. Regarding Appellants’ argument that Suzuki’s small block motion estimation is performed “only after the blocks have been modified by enhanced block generator 154 back to full scale” (Br. 12), we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Suzuki teaches that the small blocks are input to small block motion estimator. Ans. 2—3 (citing Suzuki | 88). We note this happens after Suzuki divides the enhanced block into small blocks for motion estimation. See Suzuki | 85. The claim requires “downsampling a current frame to generate a downsampled current frame” and “performing a motion search in a downsampled reference frame,” but does not preclude enhancing a block to 16x16, and then dividing the 16x16 block into small 4x4 blocks which are input to a small block motion estimator. For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 9, 17, and 24, and for the same reasons sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of dependent claims 2—8, 10—16, 18—23, and 25—29, which were not argued separately (Br. 13). DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—29 is affirmed. 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 5