NIPPON HOSO KYOKAI

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 17, 2021

2020000840 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2021)

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.
15/084,073 03/29/2016 Atsuro ICHIGAYA 005200-000001 2442
78198 7590 06/17/2021
Studebaker & Brackett PC
8255 Greensboro Drive
Suite 300
Tysons, VA 22102
EXAMINER
VO, TUNG T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2021 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):
info@sbpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ATSURO ICHIGAYA, SHUNSUKE IWAMURA,
YASUKO MORITA, and SHINICHI SAKAIDA
Appeal 2020-000840
Application 15/084,073
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We refer to the Specification, filed March 29, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action, mailed March 4, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed July 17,
2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed October 1, 2019 (“Ans.”);
and Reply Brief, filed November 13, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nippon Hoso Kyokai.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000840
Application 15/084,073
2
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to image encoding and decoding. Spec., Title.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An image encoding device comprising:
an entropy encoder operable to encode a first flag and a
second flag, wherein the first flag indicates whether or not a first
quantization matrix that consists of at least partially different
elements is to be used, wherein the at least partially different
elements of the first quantization matrix are transmitted to the
image decoding device from an image encoding device, and the
second flag is provided to an individual target block and indicates
whether or not an orthogonal transform is to be skipped on a
corresponding target block; and
a quantizer operable to quantize the target block to be
encoded, selectively using one of the first quantization matrix or
a second quantization matrix that consists of uniform elements,
wherein the quantizer is configured to use the second
quantization matrix when the target block to be encoded satisfies
a particular size requirement, or use the first quantization matrix
when the target block to be encoded does not satisfy the
particular size requirement, provided that the first flag indicates
that the first quantization matrix is to be used, and the second
flag indicates that the orthogonal transformation is to be skipped.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Terada US 2014/0064381 A1 Mar. 6, 2014
Sugio US 2015/0063446 A1 Mar. 5, 2015
Kim US 2015/0189289 A1 July 2, 2015

Appeal 2020-000840
Application 15/084,073
3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Sugio. Final Act. 2–7.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Terada. Final Act. 7–10.
Claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
being anticipated by Kim. Final Act. 10–12.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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).
OPINION
We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
§ 102 Rejection
A. Legal Principles Concerning Anticipation
“Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) requires that ‘each and every
element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently
described, in a single prior art reference.’” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743,
745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814
F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). In order to anticipate, a prior art reference
must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of
the document, but must also disclose those elements “arranged as in the
claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal 2020-000840
Application 15/084,073
4
2008) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed.
Cir. 1983); In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In other
words, the prior art reference must disclose the claim without any need to
pick, choose or combine various disclosures not directly related to each
other by the teachings of the cited reference. In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587
(CCPA 1972).
B. Sugio
In determining Sugio’s moving picture encoding method anticipates
claim 1, the Examiner finds Sugio’s scaling_list_present_flag, indicating
whether a quantization matrix is used in performing a quantization process,
discloses using a quantization matrix having uniform elements when a target
block is a particular size (e.g., 4 x 4) and, otherwise, a non-uniform
quantization matrix that has been transmitted by an originating encoding
device. Final Act. 4.
Appellant contends that Sugio is deficient as failing to disclose
exercising “a judgement for selecting either the first or second matrix.”
Appeal Br. 16. In particular, Appellant explains the disputed selection
process required by claim 1 as follows:
The first quantization matrix has elements transmitted from the
encoder to the decoder. See claim 1 (“wherein the at least
partially different elements of the first quantization matrix are
transmitted to the image decoding device from an image
encoding device”). In claim 1, thus, when the first flag indicates
that the first quantization matrix is to be used, and the second
flag indicates that the orthogonal transformation is to be skipped,
the decoder proceeds to judge whether to use the first or second
quantization matrix, depending on whether the target block to be
encoded satisfies a particular size requirement. In other words, in
claim 1, even when the first flag indicates that the first
quantization sent from the encoder is to be used (and the second
Appeal 2020-000840
Application 15/084,073
5
flag indicates that the orthogonal transformation is to be
skipped), the second quantization matrix is nonetheless used for
quantization if the target block to be encoded satisfies a particular
size requirement.
Id. at 17. Appellant argues, in contrast, “when [Sugio’s] scaling_
list_persent_flag is equal to ‘l’, and orthogonal transfom skip flag is OFF,
quantization is performed without using the quantization matrix,” including
not using the recited second quantization matrix. Id. at 18. That is,
Appellant argues, according to claim 1 “when the conditions recited in the
provided clause [of claim 1] are met, the process nonetheless still goes on to
determine whether the target block to be encoded satisfies a particular size
requirement” and, if so, “the second quantization matrix is [selected] to be
used in quantization.” Id. Appellant further argues that Sugio is further
deficient because it “is silent about the second quantization matrix that
consists of uniform elements.” Id.
The Examiner responds, finding Sugio’s description of performing
variable-length encoding “on [an] orthogonal transform skip flag only when
the prediction image is generated by intra prediction and the orthogonal
transformation is on a 4 by 4 size basis” (Sugio ¶ 65) discloses use of the
claimed second quantization matrix. Ans. 15. The Examiner finds Sugio’s
description of a scaling_list_present flag having a value of 1 discloses use of
the claimed first quantization matrix. Id. (citing Sugio ¶ 105.)
Appellant replies, contending,
[P]aragraph 65 of Sugio describes variable-length encoding, or
entropy encoding, performed by an entropy encoder, i.e., the
variable-length encoding unit 104 shown in Fig. l. Appellant
respectfully submits that the entropy encoding has nothing to do
with the quantization process to which the present invention is
Appeal 2020-000840
Application 15/084,073
6
directed. In fact, Fig. 2 of Sugio shows that entropy encoding
(S106 and S107) is performed after the quantization processes (S
103, Sl04 and Sl05).
Reply Br. 2. Appellant further argues that paragraph 105 of Sugio “merely
explains that the [scaling_list_ present_] information (Yes/No) is added to
the header” but “has nothing to do with the particular size requirement
recited in the claim.” Id. at 3. Appellant reemphasizes that Sugio further
fails to disclose the second quantization matrix consists of uniform elements.
Id.
Appellant’s arguments persuade us of reversible Examiner error.
Although it is well established that for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102,
“the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” In re Gleave, 560
F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009), here the Examiner fails to provide
sufficient explanation supporting a conclusion that the various system states
and conditions described by Sugio necessarily result in the argued matrix
usage recited by claim 1. Furthermore, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner fails to direct our attention to sufficient evidence or reasoning
supporting a conclusion that Sugio describes that a matrix used when a size
limitation is satisfied consists of uniform elements. See Appeal Br. 18,
Reply Br. 3. According, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1 as anticipated by Sugio.
C. Terada
The Examiner finds Terada’s image coding and decoding method
discloses the subject matter of claim 1. Final Act. 7–10. According to the
Examiner, Terada’s Figure 4 discloses a first flag QMatrixFlag indicating
whether to use a first, non-uniform, quantization matrix sent by the encoding
device and a second flag TransformSkipEnableFlag S204 indicating whether
Appeal 2020-000840
Application 15/084,073
7
to skip a frequency transform process for a target block. Final Act. 8.
The Examiner further finds that Terada’s steps S205 and S206 disclose using
the transmitted, first quantization matrix when the target block is other than
a particular size (i.e., 4 x 4) and, according to steps S208 and S210, using a
second quantization of uniform elements when the target block is the
particular size (i.e., 4 x 4 ). Id. at 8–9.
Appellant argues that Terada’s “decoder does not perform any
judgement as to whether to use first or second quantization matrix as
required by the language of claim 1 and just uses the quantization matrix
sent from the encoder.” Appeal Br. 19. In particular, Appellant argues, “the
process performed in S208 is not selecting a quantization matrix” as per
claim 1’s requirement “that the first flag indicates that the first quantization
matrix is to be used, and the second flag indicates that the orthogonal
transformation is to be skipped.” Reply Br. 5. Appellant further argues as
follows.
The process in S208 is a determination step for determining
whether all the coefficients of the 4x4 SPS quantization matrix
are l6, and the SPS quantization matrices other than the 4x4 SPS
quantization matrix are the same as the default matrices other
than the 4x4 default quantization matrix. Terada at 113. In S208,
therefore, the quantization matrix is already determined. The
process in S208 tries to determine what quantization matrix has
been selected in order to set a flag (SPS_QMarix_PresentFlag).
Appellant respectfully submits that the process shown in Fig. 4A
of Terada does not disclose the algorithm (of selecting one of two
quantization matrices) required by the above claim limitation.
Therefore, claims l and 5 are not anticipated by Terada.
Id.
Appellant’s argument is persuasive of reversible Examiner error. The
Appeal 2020-000840
Application 15/084,073
8
determination of Terada’s step S208 is described as “whether all the
coefficients of the 4x4 SPS quantization matrix are 16, and the SPS
quantization matrices other than the 4x4 SPS quantization matrix are the
same as the default matrices other than the 4x4 default quantization matrix.”
Terada ¶ 113. It is not self-evident, and the Examiner does not adequately
explain, how such a determination corresponds to determining whether a
matrix satisfies a particular size as claimed. It is further not evident that the
determination results in the selective usage of the claimed first and second
quantization matrices. In contrast, Appellant puts forth a cogent argument
that no quantization matrix usage selection results from step S208.
Therefore, we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Terada fails to
anticipate claim 1.
D. Kim
The Examiner finds that Kim’s encoding device includes (i) a
scaling_list_enable_flag corresponding to the claimed first flag and
indicating whether a quantization matrix is to be used and (ii) a
transSkipFlag corresponding to the claimed second flag and indicating that
an orthogonal transformation is to be skipped. Final Act. 11–12. According
to the Examiner, selection of a quantization matrix is effectuated by Kim’s
Equation 12:
𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆[𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆][𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆][𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑅𝑅𝑆𝑆𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑆𝑆][𝑆𝑆 ∗ 𝑆𝑆𝑛𝑛 + 𝑗𝑗]
Id. at 11–12.
Appellant argues that Kim’s Equation 12 results in the generation of a
quantization matrix with non-uniform elements (i.e., the claimed first
quantization matrix) when the flag transSkipFlag is equal to 0 (i.e., the
current block is not a transform skip block) and the flag scaling_list_enable
Appeal 2020-000840
Application 15/084,073
9
= 1 (i.e., the current block uses a quantization matrix). Appeal Br. 20–21.
Conversely, according to Appellant, “if transSkipFlag = 1 or scaling_list_
enable_ flag= 0, a quantization matrix with a flat or uniform elements [(i.e.,
the claimed second quantization matrix)] is used for quantization or inverse
quantization.” Id. at 21. Appellant summarizes Kim’s use of quantization
matrices and contrasts it with those required by claim 1 in the following
table.
Matrix/
Method
mij = uniform elements
[(2nd quantization
matrix)]
mij = non-uniform elements
[(1st quantization matrix)]
Kim transSkip = 1; or scaling_list_enable = 0
transSkip = 0; and
scaling_list_enable = 1
Claim 1
particular size is met;
and
transSkip = 1; and
scaling_list_enable = 1
particular size is not met;
and
transSkip = 1; and
scaling_list_enable = 1

Id. (tables combined and reformatted). Thus, according to Appellant, “Kim
uses a quantization matrix with non-uniform elements when transSkip = 0;
and scaling_list_enable = 1, irrespective of the size of a target block [and
thereby] . . . fails to disclose the invention recited in claim[] 1.” Reply Br. 6.
Appellant’s argument is persuasive of reversible Examiner error. In
particular, the Examiner fails to explain how Kim’s equation 12 results in
the use of a matrix having uniform elements when decoding a particular
target block size even when transSkip = 0. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Kim.
E. Independent Claims 3, 5, and 6
Independent claims 3, 5, and 6 includes limitations corresponding to
those argued in connection with independent claim 1. Accordingly, we do
Appeal 2020-000840
Application 15/084,073
10
not sustain the § 102 rejection of claims 3, 5, and 6.
F. Remaining Claims 2 and 4
For the reasons stated above with respect to independent claims 1 and
3, we do not sustain the § 102 rejection of dependent claims 2 and 4.
G. Remaining Arguments
Having decided the appeal on this basis, we do not reach Appellant’s
remaining arguments.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–6 under 102(a)(1) are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6 102(a)(1) Sugio 1–6
1, 2, 5 102(a)(1) Terada 1, 2, 5
1, 2, 3, 4 102(a)(1) Kim 1, 2, 3, 4
Overall
Outcome
1–6

REVERSED