Muhammed Zeyd. Coban et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2019

13332054 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2019)

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.
13/332,054 12/20/2011 Muhammed Zeyd Coban JRL-6633-0006/
VEQU00107US
1089
160597 7590 09/30/2019
NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C./MARCONI
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
KIR, ALBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2489
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2019 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
prosecution@marconi.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MUHAMMED ZEYD COBAN, YUNFEI ZHENG,
JOEL SOLE ROJALS, and MARTA KARCZEWICZ
____________________

Appeal 2017-010039
Application 13/332,054
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, BETH Z. SHAW, and
JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3–11, 13–22, 24–32, and 34–45. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM and enter NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION pursuant
to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).

Appeal 2017-010039
Application 13/332,054

2
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for coding a block of video data
that includes coding information identifying a scanning order associated
with the block of video data. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 6.
According to the Specification, a correlation exists between “a
prediction mode and a size associated with a block of video data, and a
scanning order associated with the block.” Id. ¶ 29. As a result, “a
particular scanning order may be used to code the block more often than any
other scanning order.” Id. ¶ 30. This allows for increased coding efficiency
when “coding scanning order information for blocks of video data.” Id.
¶ 31. First “an indication of whether the scanning order associated with the
block . . . is the most probable scanning order” is encoded. If “the scanning
order associated with the block is the most probable scanning order, no
further scanning order information” is encoded. Id. ¶ 32. However, if “the
scanning order associated with the block is not the most probable scanning
order,” further information is needed for “coding an indication of the
scanning order associated with the block.” Id. In this way, “the scanning
order information for the block may be coded using less information than
when . . . always coding the scanning order information for the block in its
entirety.” Id.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the invention claimed by
Appellant:
1. A method of coding coefficients associated with a block
of video data during a video coding process, the method
comprising:
selecting a most probable predefined scanning order from
a set of possible predefined scanning orders, wherein selecting
Appeal 2017-010039
Application 13/332,054

3
comprises mapping a prediction mode associated with the block
and a size associated with the block to the most probable
predefined scanning order in the set of possible predefined
scanning orders;
coding an indication of whether a scanning order
associated with the block is the most probable predefined
scanning order;
in response to the scanning order associated with the block
being the most probable predefined scanning order, coding the
block using the most probable predefined scanning order; and
in response to the scanning order associated with the
block not being the most probable predefined scanning order,
coding the block using a different scanning order from the set
of possible predefined scanning orders that is different than the
most probable predefined scanning order.

REFERENCES
He US 2005/0036549 A1 Feb. 17, 2005
Ye US 2008/0310504 A1 Dec. 18, 2008
Chen US 2009/0232204 A1 Sep. 17, 2009
Lee Adaptive Scanning for H.264/AVC Intra Coding, ETRI
Journal, Vol. 26, No. 5, Oct. 2008, pp. 668–671.

REJECTIONS
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as unpatentable over
He and Lee. Final Act. 8-10.
Claims 3–8, 11, 13–18, 21, 22, 24–29, 32, 34–39, and 42–45 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as unpatentable over He, Lee, and Ye. Final
Act. 11–17.
Claims 9, 10, 19, 20, 30, 31, 40, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§103(a) as unpatentable over He, Lee, Ye, and Chen. Final Act. 17–19.
Claims 22 and 24–31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §112 ¶ 2 as
indefinite. Final Act. 6–7.
Appeal 2017-010039
Application 13/332,054

4
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
contentions for the reasons explained below. We designate our affirmance as
including new grounds of rejection.
Obviousness over He and Lee
Independent claim 1 recites a method for coding coefficients
associated with a block of video data and requires, inter alia, “selecting a
most probable predefined scanning order . . . wherein selecting comprises
mapping a prediction mode associated with the block and a size associated
with the block to the most probable predefined scanning order.” App. Br.
24.
The Examiner finds the combination of He and Lee teaches or
suggests this limitation. See Final Act. 8, 10. In particular, the Examiner
finds He teaches or suggests selecting a most probable scanning order from a
set of predefined scanning orders, and Lee teaches or suggests the selection
involves mapping a prediction mode and size associated with the block to
the most probable scanning order. Id. at 8, 10 (citing He ¶ 7; Lee § III). The
Examiner then reasons that it would have been obvious to modify He, per
teachings of Lee, to identify the most probable scanning order based on a
block’s prediction mode and size in order to improve the compression
efficiency of the block encoding.
Appeal 2017-010039
Application 13/332,054

5
Appellant argues He does not teach or suggest selecting a most
probable scanning order, but rather teaches selecting one of two possible
scanning orders to encode the fewest bits in a frame. App. Br. 9. Appellant
further argues Lee does not teach or suggest selecting a most probable
scanning order based on prediction mode and size, but rather teaches
selecting a scanning order based only on prediction mode. Id. at 9–10.
Appellant also argues that Lee fails to teach or suggest selecting a most
probable scanning order at all, because Lee fails to recognize that a selected
scanning order may differ from the most probable scanning order. Id. at 10.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, which attack the
teachings in He and Lee separately, and fail to consider their combined
teachings. The test for obviousness “is not whether . . . the claimed
invention [is] expressly suggested in any one or all of the references,” but
rather “what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested
to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981) (emphasis added). Thus, “the Board must weigh each reference for its
power to suggest solutions to an artisan of ordinary skill.” In re Young, 927
F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
He teaches that it was known to use a frame/field prediction mode to
determine a DCT scan mode, and that “sometimes the best frame/field . . .
prediction mode may not produce the best DCT scan mode.” He ¶ 7. Thus,
He teaches selecting a “best” or most probable scan mode based on a
frame/field prediction mode. He further teaches encoding “each frame of
[an] image sequence using at least two different scanning modes,” to thereby
“determine which scanning mode actually will be more efficient.” Id. ¶ 10;
see also id. ¶ 53, Fig. 5. Thus, He teaches the actual or most efficient scan
Appeal 2017-010039
Application 13/332,054

6
mode selected for encoding may not be the “best” or most probable scan
mode.
Lee teaches that different types of intra coding modes (e.g., intra 16 x
16 and intra 4 x 4) use different prediction modes to encode data, including
vertical, horizontal, DC, and planar prediction modes. Id. at 668–669. Lee
selects a “best” one of these prediction modes using a “block-based rate-
distortion value.” Id. at 669. Lee then selects a “best” scanning mode based
on the selected prediction mode. Id. at 670. For example, Lee teaches “the
horizontal and vertical scanning order are used in the vertical and horizontal
prediction mode, and the zigzag scanning order is used in all other prediction
modes.” Id. Thus, Lee teaches selecting a “best” scanning mode based on a
prediction mode that has itself been selected based on a “block-based” rate
distortion measure. The Examiner finds Lee’s rate distortion measure “is
relevant to the size of the blocks” (Final Act. 10), and that Lee, therefore,
“teaches that a most probable scanning order (such as horizontal scanning
order) is assigned/related to a block with a particular prediction mode and
size” (Answer 5).
Considering, as a whole, the combined teachings of He and Lee, we
agree with the Examiner that the combination teaches or suggests selecting a
most probable scanning order based on block size and prediction mode. He
teaches selecting a best or most probable scan mode based on prediction
mode, and that the scan mode actually selected to encode data may not be
the most probable scan mode. He ¶¶ 7, 11, 53. Lee teaches selecting a best
or most probable scan mode based on a prediction mode that is itself
selected based on the size of the block to be encoded. Lee, 668–670. Thus,
Appeal 2017-010039
Application 13/332,054

7
the combination of He and Lee teaches or suggests mapping a prediction
mode and block size to a most probable scan mode.
Appellant next argues that a person skilled in the art would not have
modified He based on the teachings of Lee. App. Br. 10. In particular,
Appellant argues that He teaches applying the same scan mode for all blocks
of a frame, Lee teaches applying different scan modes on a block by block
basis, and that combining the teachings of Lee with He would therefore
fundamentally change the operation of He.1 Id. at 10–11.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments for three reasons.
First, Appellant’s arguments improperly attack the separate teachings of He
and Lee, and fail to consider their combined teachings. See Keller, 642 F.2d
at 425. He and Lee must not be read in isolation, but for what they fairly
teach in combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Second, Appellant’s arguments
depend on bodily incorporating the teachings of Lee into He, which is also
improper. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425 (“The test for obviousness is not
whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference.”). The Examiner does not
suggest bodily incorporating the teachings of Lee into the teachings of He.
Rather, the Examiner suggests “adapting a block based technique into [a]
frame based technique” or vice-versa (e.g., adapting He’s frame based
technique to operate on a block by block basis) because a person skilled in

1 The Examiner provides a reason to combine the references that is rational
and supported by evidence drawn from the record. See Final Act. 10 (citing
Lee, Abstract). Appellant does not provide any particularized arguments as
to why this reasoning is incorrect. See App. Br. 8–12.
Appeal 2017-010039
Application 13/332,054

8
the art would have known that “determining [the] degree of granularity of
[a] video data portion on which the encoding operation is applied is a trade-
off between encoding/compression efficiency and computational
complexity.” Ans. 6–7.
Third, and finally, we disagree with Appellant’s contention that “He
literally discloses that the same scan is used for all blocks of a frame.” App.
Br. 10. Rather, He expressly discloses its method can be performed on
either a frame-by-frame or block-by-block basis. See He, claim 5
(disclosing dividing a picture into different portions “wherein different
portions are coded using different scan modes”); id., claim 6 (disclosing the
different “portions comprise[] at least one of slices, macroblocks, and
subblocks”).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 as obvious over He and Lee, and designate the rejection
a new ground of rejection.
Obviousness over He, Lee, and Ye
The Examiner rejected claims 3–8, 11, 13–18, 21, 22, 24–29, 32, 34–
39, and 42–45 as obvious over He, Lee, and Ye. Final Act. 11–17.
1. Claims 8, 11, 18, 21, 22, 29, 32, 39, and 42–45
Appellant argues these claims are patentable over the combination of
He, Lee, and Ye for the same reasons that claim 1 is patentable over the
combination of He and Lee. App. Br. 12–15, 22. We have considered
Appellant’s arguments above, and affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims
8, 11, 18, 21, 22, 29, 32, 39, and 42–45 as obvious over He, Lee, and Ye for
the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, and designate the
rejection a new ground of rejection.
Appeal 2017-010039
Application 13/332,054

9
2. Claims 3, 13, 24, and 34
Claim 3 depends from claim 1, and recites:
coding the indication of whether the scanning order associated
with the block is the most probable predefined scanning order
comprises performing a context adaptive entropy coding
process that includes applying a context model based on at least
one context, wherein the at least one context includes one of the
most probable predefined scanning order, the prediction mode
associated with the block, or the size associated with the block.

App. Br. 24. Claims 13, 24, and 34 recite a similar limitation. Id. at 27, 29,
33.
The Examiner finds the combination of He and Lee does not teach this
limitation, but that it is taught in paragraphs 104 and 129 of Ye. Final Act.
11. Therefore, the Examiner finds it would have been obvious to further
modify He based on the teachings of Ye to code the most probable scanning
order using a context adaptive entropy coding process to improve the coding
efficiency. Id. at 12.
Appellant first argues that claims 3, 13, 24, and 34 are patentable over
the combination of He, Lee, and Ye for the same reasons that claim 1 is
patentable over the combination of He and Lee. App. Br. 15. We are not
persuaded by this argument for the reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 1. Appellant next argues that these claims are patentable because
paragraph 129 of Ye describes using a context adaptive coding process to
adjust the actual scanning order for a block, rather than the most probable
scanning order. Id. at 16. Appellant further argues that although Ye teaches
using a context adaptive coding process to encode a prediction mode for a
block, Ye fails to teach using the process to encode whether a scanning order
Appeal 2017-010039
Application 13/332,054

10
is the most probable scanning order. Id. Thus, Appellant argues, a person
skilled in the art would not have looked to Ye to teach this limitation. Id.
The Examiner responds that paragraph 104 of Ye teaches “a context
adaptive entropy encoding process (CABAC or CAVLC) that includes a
context model of prediction mode . . . to perform coding of indication/syntax
related to video data.” Ans. 8 (emphasis added). The Examiner further
finds Ye’s coding of syntax information “is applicable to the coding of an
indication of whether a scanning order associated with the block is the most
probable predefined scanning order in He’s system.” Id. Appellant does not
contest these findings, which are supported by evidence drawn from the
record, and therefore waives any argument that they are erroneous. See
Reply Br. 3–8; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv).
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and reasoning. Ye
teaches receiving “block header information for [a] block in the form of one
or more header syntax elements.” Ye ¶ 94. The header syntax elements
include “particular characteristics of the current video block, such as block
type, prediction mode, [and] coded block pattern . . .” Id. (emphasis added).
Ye “encodes the header information,” and “may encode the syntax elements
of the current block based on the syntax elements of one or more previously
encoded video blocks.” Id. ¶ 95.
As Appellant acknowledges, Ye expressly teaches using context
adaptive entropy encoding to encode the syntax element identifying the
prediction mode for a block. See App. Br. 16 (citing Ye ¶ 134). In
particular, Ye teaches “encod[ing] a codeword that represents the prediction
mode of the current block. . . . using CAVLC, CABAC or other entropy
encoding methodology.” Id. ¶ 137. Ye uses different prediction mode
Appeal 2017-010039
Application 13/332,054

11
contexts (e.g., first, second, and third) to encode the syntax element
identifying the prediction mode for the block because doing so “may result
in better compression of the prediction mode information.” Id. ¶¶ 139–142.
Ye further discloses that “similar techniques may be used to encode other
ones of the header syntax elements.” Id. ¶ 132; see also id. ¶ 95.
A person skilled in the art would have known that scanning order
information, such as the best or most probable scanning order, is a header
syntax element. See He ¶ 7 (using “the frame/field prediction mode to
determine the DCT scan mode”); id. ¶ 6 (setting “a one-bit flag to signal
DCT scan mode in the header”); Spec. ¶ 102 (“According to some coding
standards, such syntax elements may include scanning order information for
the block.”) (emphasis added). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Ye’s
method of coding syntax information using a context adaptive entropy
encoding process “is applicable to the coding of an indication of whether a
scanning order associated with the block is the most probable predefined
scanning order in He’s system.” Ans. 8.
Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 13, 24, and 34 over the combination of He,
Lee, and Ye, and designate the rejection a new ground of rejection.
3. Claims 4, 14, 25, and 35
Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and recites “wherein coding the block
using the different scanning order comprises using a zig-zag scanning order
to code the coefficients associated with the block without receiving an
additional indication of the scanning order associated with the block.” App.
Br. 25. Claims 14, 25, and 35 recite a similar limitation. Id. at 27, 30, 33.
Appeal 2017-010039
Application 13/332,054

12
The Examiner finds He teaches this limitation by coding a block of
data using a zig-zag scanning order when doing so is more efficient than
coding the block using an alternative scanning order, which the Examiner
identifies as the most probable scanning order. Final Act. 12 (citing He
¶ 53, Fig. 5). The Examiner further finds that Ye teaches this limitation by
coding a block of data using either a zig-zag scanning order or some
alternative scanning order such as a horizontal or vertical scanning order.
Id. (citing Ye ¶ 123).
Appellant first argues that claims 4, 14, 25, and 35 are patentable over
the combination of He, Lee, and Ye for the same reasons that claim 1 is
patentable over the combination of He and Lee. App. Br. 17. We are not
persuaded by this argument for the reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 1. Appellant next argues that He fails to teach that either the zig-zag
or alternative scanning orders are the most probable predefined scanning
order. Id. Appellant argues the Examiner acknowledged this deficiency in
He, and therefore relied on Ye for teaching this limitation, but that Ye merely
teaches the zig-zag scanning order is the initial scanning order in an adaptive
scanning process, not an alternative to the most probable predefined
scanning order. Id. at 17–18.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. First, we agree with
the Examiner that “[t]he Final Office Action in no place states the deficiency
of He in teaching the above-mentioned subject matter.” Ans. 8. Second,
claim 1 recites the most probable scanning order is selected based on the
block size and prediction mode of a given block of video data without
identifying the given block’s size or prediction mode. See App. Br. 24.
Thus, any scanning order could be the most probable scanning order for any
Appeal 2017-010039
Application 13/332,054

13
given block of video data, including the zig-zag scanning order, depending
on the given block’s size and prediction mode. This is evident from the
array mostProbableScan [4][34] disclosed in the Specification, where each
of the four rows in the array represent a block size, and each of the 34
columns in the array represent a prediction mode. See Spec. ¶¶ 111, 113.
Depending on the block size and prediction mode for a given block of video
data, the most probable scanning order can be zig-zag, horizontal, or
vertical, identified in the array by respective values 0, 1, or 2. Id. ¶¶ 112,
113. Claim 4 narrows claim 1, again without identifying the size or
prediction mode of the given block of video data, by requiring the most
probable scanning order be a scanning order other than zig-zag. Id. at 25.
He, as discussed above in reference to claim 1, teaches it was known
to code a “best” or most probable scanning order for a given block of video
data, and to explore alternative scanning orders because the “best” scanning
order may not be the actual (e.g., most efficient) scanning order used to
encode that given block of video data. See He ¶¶ 6, 7, 11, 53. Thus, like
claim 1, He’s “best” or most probable scanning order could be either the zig-
zag or alternative scanning order depending on the characteristics of the
given block of video data encoded. For this reason, it was not unreasonable
for the Examiner to identify He’s alternative scanning order as the most
probable scanning order, and He’s zig-zag scanning order as a different
scanning order. After all, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
known that some scanning order would be the most probable scanning order
for a given block of video data, and thus He’s alternative scanning order
could be the most probable scanning order and He’s zig-zag scanning order
Appeal 2017-010039
Application 13/332,054

14
could be a different scanning order depending on the size and prediction
mode of the given block of video data.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 14, 25, and 35 over the combination of He,
Lee, and Ye, and designate the rejection a new ground of rejection.
Claims 5, 15, 26, and 36
Claim 5 depends from claim 1, and recites “wherein coding the block
using the different scanning order comprises coding an additional indication
of the scanning order associated with the block.” App. Br. 25. Claims 15,
26, and 36 recite a similar limitation. Id. at 27, 30, 33. The Examiner finds
He, as modified by Lee and Ye, teaches or suggests this limitation because
paragraphs 122 and 129 of Ye teach collecting the statistics of the transform
coefficients of encoded data blocks. Id. at 12–13.
Appellant first argues that these claims are patentable over the
combination of He, Lee, and Ye for the same reasons that claim 1 is
patentable over the combination of He and Lee. App. Br. 18. We are not
persuaded by this argument for the reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 1. Appellant next argues that the cited paragraphs of Ye do not teach
or suggest coding an additional indication of the scanning order associated
with the block when the scanning order is not the most probable scanning
order. Id. at 18–21. In particular, Appellant argues that paragraph 122 of Ye
teaches that Ye’s encoder and decoder both collect transform coefficient
statistics and, therefore, there is no reason for Ye’s encoder to transmit those
statistics to the decoder. Id. at 18–19. Appellant further argues that
paragraph 129 of Ye simply teaches adapting the scanning order from an
initial to a different scanning order, but does not teach encoding the scanning
Appeal 2017-010039
Application 13/332,054

15
order information because, again, Ye’s decoder independently adapts the
scanning order from an initial to a different scanning order based on
independently collected transform statistics. Id. at 19.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. However, because we
find (i) the combination of He and Lee teaches or suggests encoding a best
or most probable scanning order as explained above in reference to claim 1,
(ii) Ye teaches or suggests encoding header syntax elements for a block of
video data using a context adaptive entropy encoding process, and (iii) Ye’s
header syntax element encoding process adds additional information when
the syntax element does not have the most probable value, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection and designate it a new ground of rejection.
As explained above in reference to claim 3, Ye teaches receiving
“block header information for the block in the form of one or more header
syntax elements.” Ye ¶ 94. The header syntax elements include “particular
characteristics of the current video block, such as block type, prediction
mode, [and] coded block pattern . . .” Id. (emphases added). Ye then
“encodes the header information,” and “may encode the syntax elements of
the current block based on the syntax elements of one or more previously
encoded video blocks.” Id. ¶ 95. Although Ye expressly describes encoding
the block’s prediction mode syntax element, Ye teaches that “similar
techniques may be used for encoding other header syntax elements.” Id. A
person skilled in the art would have known that scanning order information,
such as the best or most probable scanning order, is a header syntax element.
See, He ¶¶ 6–7; Spec. ¶ 102 (“According to some coding standards, such
syntax elements may include scanning order information for the block.”)
(emphasis added).
Appeal 2017-010039
Application 13/332,054

16
Ye teaches “encoding the prediction mode [for a current block] based
on a previously encoded block located directly above the current block . . .
and a previously encoded block located directly to the left of the current
block.” Ye ¶ 95. Ye does this because “[a] strong correlation may exist
between the prediction mode of the current block and the prediction modes
of the upper and left neighboring blocks.” Id. ¶ 102. Thus, when the
prediction modes of the upper and left neighboring blocks are the same (e.g.,
unidirectional), “the probability of the prediction mode of the current block
also being one of the unidirectional prediction modes is high.” Id. A person
skilled in the art would have understood this disclosure to mean that when
the prediction mode of the current block matches the prediction modes of its
upper and left neighboring blocks it is the most probable prediction mode
(i.e., having a high probability).
Ye further teaches encoding an indication of whether the prediction
mode for a current block is the most probable prediction mode, and adding
additional coding information when it is not. Specifically, Ye teaches
encoding the prediction mode for the current block with a single bit having a
value of ‘1’ when it matches the prediction modes used to encode the blocks
both directly above it and to its left. Id. ¶¶ 96–98. As discussed above, this
is the most probable prediction mode for the block. Ye further teaches
encoding the prediction mode for the current block with two bits when it
matches the prediction mode used to encode only one of the blocks directly
above it or to its left—the first bit having a value of ‘1’ and the second bit
having a value of ‘1’ or ‘0’ to indicate whether the prediction mode of the
current block matches the prediction mode of the block directly above it or
to its left, respectively. Id. ¶¶ 96, 97, 99. Finally, Ye teaches encoding the
Appeal 2017-010039
Application 13/332,054

17
prediction mode for the current block with five bits when it does not match
the prediction modes used to encode either of the blocks directly above it or
to its left— the first bit having a value of ‘0’ and the next four bits having
values that indicate the prediction mode actually used to encode the current
block. Id. ¶¶ 96, 100.
Thus, Ye teaches or suggests encoding a header syntax element (e.g.,
the prediction mode for a block) with an indication of whether the prediction
mode is the most probable prediction mode (i.e., whether it matches the
prediction modes used to encode both of the blocks directly above it and to
its left), and encoding the header syntax element with additional information
when the prediction mode is not the most probable prediction mode (i.e.,
when it matches only one or does not match either of the prediction modes
used to encode the blocks directly above it and to its left.). Ye further
teaches that “similar techniques may be used for encoding other header
syntax elements,” and as explained above, a person skilled in the art would
have known that a most probable scanning order is a header syntax element.
Ye ¶ 95.
Therefore, given the teachings in paragraphs 96 through 100 of Ye and
the teachings in paragraphs 7 and 8 of He, it would have been obvious to a
person skilled in the art to modify He’s one-bit header syntax element
identifying the most probable scanning order to include both “an indication
of whether a scanning order associated with the block is the most probable
predefined scanning order” as recited in claim 1, and “an additional
indication of the scanning order associated with the block” when the block’s
scanning order differs from the most probable scanning order as recited in
claim 5. Ye expressly suggests the combination as described above, and the
Appeal 2017-010039
Application 13/332,054

18
combination reflects the substitution of one known element in the art for
another to achieve a predictable result. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007.)
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 15, 26,
and 36 as obvious over He, Lee, and Ye, and designate the rejection a new
ground of rejection.
4. Claims 6, 16, 27, and 37
Claim 6 depends from claim 5, and recites “wherein coding the
additional indication of the scanning order associated with the block
comprises performing a context adaptive entropy coding process that
includes applying a context model based on at least one context, wherein the
at least one context includes one of the most probable predefined scanning
order, the prediction mode associated with the block, or the size associated
with the block.” App. Br. 25. Claims 16, 27, and 37 recite a similar
limitation. Id. at 27, 30, 33. The Examiner finds He, as modified by Lee
and Ye, teaches or suggests this limitation based on the teachings in
paragraphs 104, 122 and 129 of Ye. Final Act. 13.
Appellant first argues that these claims are patentable for the same
reasons that claim 1 is patentable over the combination of He and Lee. App.
Br. 20. We are not persuaded by this argument for the reasons discussed
above with respect to claim 1. Appellant next argues that these claims are
patentable for the same reasons as claim 5, i.e., that Ye teaches using a
context adaptive encoding process to encode a block’s prediction mode, not
its most probable scanning order. Id. We are not persuaded by this
argument for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 5. Finally,
Appellant argues that these claims are patentable because even if Ye does
Appeal 2017-010039
Application 13/332,054

19
disclose encoding the most probable scanning order for a block, it does not
disclose encoding a different scanning order for the block that is not the
most probable scanning order. We, are similarly not persuaded by this
argument for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 5. Id.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 16,
27, and 37 as obvious over He, Lee, and Ye, and designate the rejection as a
new ground of rejection.
5. Claims 7, 17, 28, and 38
Claim 7 depends from claim 1, and recites “wherein determining the
most probable predefined scanning order for the block comprises
designating a zig-zag scanning order as the most probable predefined
scanning order for the block.” App. Br. 25. Claims 17, 28, and 38 recite a
similar limitation. Id. at 28, 30, 34. The Examiner finds He, as modified by
Lee and Ye, teaches or suggests this limitation based on He’s teachings in
paragraphs 7 and 53, and Ye’s teachings in paragraphs 86 and 123. Final
Act. 13.
Appellant first argues that these claims are patentable for the same
reasons that claim 1 is patentable over the combination of He and Lee. App.
Br. 21. We are not persuaded by this argument for the reasons discussed
above with respect to claim 1. Appellant next argues that these claims are
patentable because “nothing in He or Ye presumes that a zig-zag scanning
order is a most probable predefined scanning order.” Id. We are not
persuaded by this argument for the reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 4. Specifically, claim 1 does not require the most probable scanning
order for a given block of data to be the zig-zag scanning order, and the
Specification discloses that the most probable scanning order can be either
Appeal 2017-010039
Application 13/332,054

20
zig-zag, horizontal, or vertical. See App. Br. 24; Spec. ¶¶ 111–113. Claim
7, at best, narrows claim 1 without identifying the size or prediction mode
for a given block of video data, by requiring the most probable scanning
order to be the zig-zag scanning order. Id. at 25. As explained above, He,
like claim 1, permits the “best” or most probable scanning order to be either
the zig-zag or alternative scanning order depending on the size and
prediction mode for the given block of video data. For this reason, it was not
unreasonable for the Examiner to identify He’s zig-zag scanning order as the
most probable scanning order in claim 7. A person of ordinary skill in the
art would have known that some scanning order has to be the most probable
scanning order, and because the claims do not require encoding a block of
video data having a particular size and prediction mode, a person skilled in
the art would have known that He’s zig-zag scanning order could be the
most probable scanning order for a given block of video data processed by
He’s system depending on the given block’s size and prediction mode.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 17, 28,
and 38 as obvious over He, Lee, and Ye, and designate the rejection as a new
ground of rejection.
We further reject claims 7, 17, 28, and 38 as indefinite under 35
U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 for failing to “particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the inventor . . . regards as the invention.” The
Specification discloses numerous ways of determining the most probable
scanning order for a block of data. For example, in one embodiment, the
most probable scanning order is selected “based on which of a plurality of
intra-prediction modes is used to code the block.” Spec. ¶ 76. In a second
embodiment, the most probable scanning order is selected by “designat[ing]
Appeal 2017-010039
Application 13/332,054

21
a zig-zag scanning order as the most probable scanning order.” Id. ¶ 85. In
a third embodiment, the most probable scanning order is selected by “using
scanning order information for previously encoded blocks . . . [having] a
same associated prediction mode and size as the currently encoded block.”
Id. ¶ 104.
Claim 1 recites selecting a most probable predefined scanning order
by “mapping a prediction mode associated with the block and a size
associated with the block to the most probable scanning order.” App. Br. 24.
Thus, claim 1 is directed toward the invention disclosed in the third
embodiment, where the most probable scanning order for a given block of
video data can be any scanning order depending on the block’s size and
prediction mode. See Spec. ¶¶ 111–113. Claim 7, by contrast, appears to be
directed to the invention disclosed in the second embodiment, where a given
block’s most probable scanning order is simply designated to be the zig-zag
scanning order, regardless of the block’s size or prediction mode. This
renders claim 7 indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim is directed
toward the second or third embodiment, i.e., whether the most probable
scanning order is simply designated zig-zag or determined from among a
plurality of scanning orders depending on the block size and prediction
mode. Applying a similar analysis to claim pairs 11/17, 22/28, and 32/38,
we find claims 17, 28, and 38 to be indefinite for the same reasons as claim
7.
Accordingly, we reject claims 7, 17, 28, and 38 as indefinite under 35
U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2, and designate the rejection a new ground of rejection.
Appeal 2017-010039
Application 13/332,054

22

Indefiniteness of Claims 22, 24–31, and 44
Independent claim 22 recites a device for coding coefficients
associated with a block of video data, and requires the device to include
various means, including means for “selecting a most probable predefined
scanning order,” “coding an indication of whether a scanning order . . is the
most probable predefined scanning order,” “coding the block using the most
probable scanning order,” and “coding the block using a different scanning
order.” App. Br. 29. Claims 24–31 and 44 depend, directly or indirectly,
from claim 22, and most of these claims recite additional means for
performing additional functions. Id. at 29–31.
The Examiner interprets the limitations recited in claims 22, 23–28,
30, and 31 as means-plus-function limitations requiring construction under
35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. Final Act. 5. The Examiner rejects these claims as
indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 because the Specification fails to
“disclose the corresponding algorithm for the claimed functions, which are
considered as specialized functions.” Final Act. 6–7.
Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22, 23–
28, 30, and 31 as indefinite. See App. Br. 6–23. At best, Appellant
acknowledges that claim 22 invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, and indicates “the
claimed means is a processor,” and the algorithms performed by that
processor are set forth in Figures 7–9 and paragraphs 113, 121, and 174–
214. App. Br. 5.2 However, Appellant fails to explain how these disclosures

2 We note that Appellant fails to identify any corresponding structure for
performing the functions recited by the means limitations recited in claims
Appeal 2017-010039
Application 13/332,054

23
amount to algorithms that perform the various functions recited in the
various “means” limitations of claim 22. Thus, to the extent Appellant’s
identification of these disclosures is a response to the Examiner’s rejection,
it’s a response that does little more than invite the Board to independently
review the disclosures to determine whether and to what extent they consist
of algorithms that are linked to the functions recited in the means limitations.
We decline to do so. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391
(Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this [tribunal] to examine the
claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant.”).
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we find Appellant has
waived any argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 22 and 24–
31 as indefinite, and summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejection. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv).
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 22, 23–28, 30, and 31 as indefinite
under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as
unpatentable over He and Lee is affirmed, and we designate the affirmance
as a new ground of rejection.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3–8, 11, 13–18, 21, 22, 24–29, 32,
34–39, and 42–45 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as unpatentable over He, Lee, and
Ye is affirmed, and we designate the affirmance as a new ground of
rejection.

24–28, 30, and 31. See App. Br. 6–23. We, therefore, summarily affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims for at least this reason.

Appeal 2017-010039
Application 13/332,054

24
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 10, 19, 20, 30, 31, 40, and 41
under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as unpatentable over He, Lee, Ye, and Chen is
affirmed, and we designate the affirmance as a new ground of rejection.
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), claims 7, 17, 28,
and 38 are rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.
Section 41.50(b) provides that “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant
to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” Rather,
WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION,
Appellant must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the
new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the newly
rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so
rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to
the examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard
under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)