Ex Parte Van Der Vleuten et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2016

11568724 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111568,724 11/06/2006 Renatus Josephus Van Der Vleuten
24737 7590 05/03/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2004P01106WOUS 9249
EXAMINER
ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2016 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):
marianne.fox@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RENATUS JOSEPHUS VAN DER VLEUTEN,
LAMBERTUS ANTONIUS VAN EGGELEN, and
IHOR KIRENKO
Appeal2014-008093
Application 11/568,724
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, LARRY J. HUME, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-008093
Application 11/568,724
l. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 2, and 5-10. Claims 3, 4, and 11 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to "encoding of
information blocks, when used for compression of image data" (Spec. 1,
11. 17-18).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method of encoding a signal that comprises blocks of
values that are generated in accordance with a compression
scheme in order to obtain a bit-stream, the method comprising the
steps of:
representing a block as a sequence of bit planes, wherein
the most significant bits of said values form a most significant bit
plane, and the respective less significant bits of said values form
respective less significant bit planes; and
extracting information from said bit planes by processing
said bit planes bit-plane by bit-plane, starting with the most
significant bit plane, wherein for each bit plane:
(i) a parameter (SMAx) of a corresponding bit plane is
determined, in accordance with a predetermined parameter
definition, in such a way that said parameter SMAX defines a one-
dimensional partition of significant and insignificant bits of the
corresponding bit plane, the defined one-dimensional partition
enclosing all set bits of the corresponding bit plane, wherein the
one-dimensional partition of significant and insignificant bits
follows a predetermined shaped path over the corresponding bit
2
Appeal2014-008093
Application 11/568,724
plane, the predetermined shaped path including all positions in a
bit order sequence from a lowest order number position to a
highest order number position of the corresponding bit plane,
wherein the parameter SMAX comprises an order number
corresponding to a highest bit order number set bit in the bit
order sequence of the one-dimensional partition, wherein a set bit
is meant as one selected from the group consisting of a one and a
zero,
(ii) the parameter (SMAx) of the corresponding bit plane is
transmitted to said bit-stream, and
(iii) all magnitude bits, which includes all set bits and
which can also include non-set bits, whether significant bits or
insignificant bits, enclosed within said partition of bits defined by
said parameter (SMAx) of the corresponding bit plane are scanned
and transmitted to said bit-stream.
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Kleihorst WO 01/17268 Al Mar. 8, 2001
Claims 1, 2, and 5-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Kleihorst.
II. ISSUES
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in
finding Kleihorst discloses: "(iii) all magnitude bits, which includes all set
bits and which can also include non-set bits, whether significant bits or
insignificant bits, enclosed within said partition of bits defined by said
parameter (SMAx) of the corresponding bit plane are scanned and transmitted
to said bit-stream" (claim 1, emphasis added).
3
Appeal2014-008093
Application 11/568,724
Ill. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Appellants' Invention
1. Appellants disclose a method of encoding blocks of values in
order to obtain a bit stream, the values expressed as a set of bit planes
(Abst.). Figure 4 is reproduced below:
FIG.4
Figure 4 illustrates a bit plane (BP) in which a parameter defines a
partition of the bits in the bit plane that encloses all set bits (Abst.). For
example, the partition may be a rectangular zone defined by parameters
RMAX, the highest row number comprising any set bits (ones), and CMAX, the
highest column number comprising any set bits (Spec. 5, 1. 25 to 6, 1. 3). All
magnitude bits within the partition are scanned and transferred to the bit
stream, regardless of whether they are significant or insignificant bits (Spec.
2, 11. 1-5; 6, 11. 20-25). This allows for a faster, less complex coding scheme
(Spec. 6, 11. 26-30).
4
Appeal2014-008093
Application 11/568,724
Kleihorst
2. Kleihorst discloses a method of coding blocks of values (Abst.).
For each bit plane, scanning and transmitting of values are performed in a
rectangular scan zone (RMAxlCMAx) (id.), RMAX and CMAX indicating the
maximum row and column numbers in which a newly significant coefficient
has been found (p. 5, 1. 34 top. 6, 1. 2). "While encoding each bit-plane, a
distinction is made between significant and insignificant coefficients" (p. 4,
11. 30-31). "[A] single bit [is sent] for each newly significant coefficient
inside the scan zone ... it is not necessary to transmit a bit for the
coefficients that were already significant ... this position coding is very
efficient" (p. 6, 11. 4--8).
3. Kleihorst discloses zig-zag and diagonal scan orders as prior art
methods (p. 6, 11. 10-11). Kleihorst also discusses a previous, less efficient
coding algorithm disclosed in WO 99/16250 in which "coefficients are
scanned in a diagonal order" (p. 1, 11. 23-24) and encoding of a bit-stream
"simply stops when the target parameter as the bit count is met" (p. 1,
11. 5-10).
IV. ANALYSIS
35 U.S. c. § 102(b)
Appellants contend "Kleihorst teaches that it is only a single bit for
each newly significant coefficient (NSC) inside the rectangular scan zone
that is sent (i.e. transmitted), in contrast to all magnitude bits as required by
claim 1" (App. Br. 20). Particularly, Appellants contend "Kleihorst teaches
and suggests that only bits of significant coe(ficients ... are transmitted and
that bits for insignificant coe(ficients are not transmitted" (id. at 18).
5
Appeal2014-008093
Application 11/568,724
Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellants. In
particular, Kleihorst discloses "it is not necessary to transmit a bit for the
coefficients that were already significant" (FF 2). As Appellants point out,
and we agree, "[s]ince Kleihorst explicitly teaches that 'an insignificant
coefficient is a coefficient for which no bits have been transmitted yet', it is
thus explicitly understood that bits for insignificant coefficients of Kleihorst
are not transmitted" (App. Br. 18). Thus, although the Examiner finds, in
Kleihorst, "the position of each newly significant bit is encoded by a zig-zag
pattern of all bits inside the scan zone, where the significant coefficients are
transmitted as ones (1) and insignificant coefficients are zeros (O)" (Final
Act. 7), we disagree that all of Kleihorst's magnitude bits inside the scan
zone, whether significant or insignificant, are transmitted as disclosed by
Appellants (FF 1) and as claimed.
The Examiner finds that Appellants' claimed invention "provides
lower complexity by implementing some but not all of the steps in
Kleihorst" (Ans. 3), particularly that "Kleihorst prefers to additionally
compress the scanned bits [by marking significant coefficients and sign bits]
before transmission" (id. at 10-11). Thus, the Examiner relies upon a
"teaching of uncompressed scan in a background embodiment of Kleihorst"
(id. at 11) which more simply involves a zig-zag or diagonal scan order and
bit count target parameter (FF 3). As stated by the Examiner, "the claims
are rejected over embodiments that Kleihorst teaches as prior art" (Ans. 5). 1
1 We find the Examiner's response, "A reference may be relied upon for all
that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the
art, including nonpreferred embodiments," and citation of Merck & Co., Inc.
v. Biocraft Laboratories, Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (Ans. 5)
improper because these concern obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as
6
Appeal2014-008093
Application 11/568,724
However, in rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relied upon the prior art
embodiment (citing p. 1 of Kleihorst) in conjunction with a main
embodiment, i.e., object of the invention (citing pp. 5-7 and 10 of Kleihorst)
(Final Act. 2-7). These conflicting embodiments of Kleihorst cannot
together anticipate the claim; for anticipation, "it is not enough that the prior
art reference ... includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might
somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention." Net MoneyIN, Inc. v.
VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Although the Examiner finds that "Kleihorst' s encoding of the sign
bits read on the embodiment of the claim that encode [sic] which coefficient
is significant or not significant" (Final Act. 3), we cannot find any clear
disclosure in the sections of Kleihorst referenced by the Examiner of" all
magnitude bits ... whether significant bits or insignificant bits, enclosed
within said partition of bits defined by said parameter (SMAx) of the
corresponding bit plane are scanned and transmitted to said bit-stream," as
required by claim 1 (emphasis added). Kleihorst discloses transmitting sign
bits for newly significant coefficients (p. 5, 11. 15-16) but does not mention
the same for insignificant coefficients. And Examiner even states that
magnitude bits are "different from sign bits" (Final Act. 3).
Thus, Kleihorst fails to anticipate "all magnitude bits ... whether
significant bits or insignificant bits, enclosed within said partition of bits
defined by said parameter (SMAx) of the corresponding bit plane are scanned
and transmitted to said bit-stream," as recited in claim 1.
opposed to anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, which is the issue here.
Similarly, Examiner's reliance on In re Fulton and discussion of what
constitutes teaching away (Final Act. 3) are also inapplicable here.
7
Appeal2014-008093
Application 11/568,724
We find the preponderance of evidence on this record fails to support
the Examiner's finding that Appellants' claim 1 is anticipated by Kleihorst.
We are of the view that the Examiner has not fully developed the record to
show express or inherent anticipation regarding the disputed limitations of
claim 1 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).2 Therefore, we are constrained to
reverse the Examiner's rejection of representative claim 1 and independent
claims 9 and 10 standing there with (App. Br. 21-23), as well as claims 2
and 5-8 depending from claim 1, over Kleihorst.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5-10 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
REVERSED
2 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to
consider whether claims 1, 2, and 5-10 should instead be rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Kleihorst. While the Board is
authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should
be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (MPEP) 1213.02.
8