Toshiyasu Sugio et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 11, 2019

14533151 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 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.
14/533,151 11/05/2014 Toshiyasu SUGIO 2014-1459A 1001
125044 7590 09/11/2019
Wenderoth, Lind & Ponack, L.L.P.
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
EXAMINER
DANG, PHILIP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/11/2019 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):
eoa@wenderoth.com
kmiller@wenderoth.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte TOSHIYASU SUGIO, TAKAHIRO NISHI,
YOUJI SHIBAHARA, KYOKO TANIKAWA,
HISAO SASAI, TORU MATSUNOBU, and
KENGO TERADA
____________________

Appeal 2018-009129
Application 14/533,151
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JENNIFER S. BISK, LARRY J. HUME, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–14, which are all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 This Decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the original
specification, filed November 5, 2014, claiming priority to earlier filed
applications; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action, mailed November 16,
2017; “Br.” for Appellants’ Appeal Brief, filed May 25, 2018; and “Ans.”
for Examiner’s Answer, mailed July 5, 2018. Appellants elected not to file a
Reply Brief.
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Sun Patent Trust.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-009129
Application 14/533,151

2
BACKGROUND
Appellants’ disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to a
moving picture encoding and decoding method. Spec., Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A moving picture encoding method for encoding a moving
picture per block, the moving picture encoding method comprising:
generating a prediction image of a current block to be encoded,
using a reference block that is adjacent to the current block or
included in a reference picture different from a current picture to be
encoded, and generating a prediction residual which is a difference
between the current block and the prediction image;
determining whether to apply horizontal and vertical
transformation to the prediction residual or to apply none of the
horizontal and vertical transformation to the prediction residual;
performing the transformation on the prediction residual
according to a result of the determining, to derive transform
coefficients;
performing quantization on the transform coefficients to derive
quantized coefficients;
encoding a transform skip flag indicating the result of the
determining; and
encoding the quantized coefficients either in a first scan order
when the result of the determining indicates to apply the horizontal
and vertical transformation or a second scan order when the result of
the determining indicates to apply none of the horizontal and vertical
transformation, the second scan order being different from the first
scan order.
Br. 11 (Claims App’x) (emphasis added).
Appeal 2018-009129
Application 14/533,151

3
THE REJECTION
Claims 1–143 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Sato (US 2011/0103485 A1, published May 5, 2011); Mrak Article (Marta
Mrak et al., Transform Skip Mode, Proposal for the Joint Collaborative
Team on Video Coding, Document: JCTVC–F077_r1 (July 14–22, 2011));
Bross (High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) Text Specification Draft 7,
Draft of HEVC for the Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding,
Document: JCTVC–I1003_d2 (May 7, 2012)); and Mrak Patent4 (GB
2492333 A, published January 2, 2013). Final Act. 6–40.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). To the extent Appellants have not advanced separate,
substantive arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments
are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and any evidence
presented. Appellants argue claims 1–14 as a group. See Br. 7–9.
Therefore, consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we

3 Although the heading of the rejection only lists claims 1 and 14 (Final
Act. 6), the other claims were addressed in the body of the rejection (see id.
at 11–35), as recognized by Appellants (Br. 7). Accordingly, we consider
the Final Office Action’s reference to claims “1 and 14” to be a
typographical error that should have referenced claims “1–14.”
4 Although the Examiner and Applicant refer to this reference by the
inventor’s first name (i.e., Marta), we refer to this reference by the
inventor’s last name (i.e., Mrak) according to standard practice.
Appeal 2018-009129
Application 14/533,151

4
limit our discussion to claim 1. Independent claims 7, 13, and 14 and
dependent claims 2–6 and 8–12 stand or fall with claim 1. We highlight and
address specific findings and arguments for emphasis in our analysis below.
Claim 1 recites: “encoding the quantized coefficients either in a first
scan order when the result of the determining indicates to apply the
horizontal and vertical transformation or a second scan order when the
result of the determining indicates to apply none of the horizontal and
vertical transformation, the second scan order being different from the first
scan order.” Br. 11 (Claims App’x) (emphasis added) (referred to in this
Decision as the “disputed limitation”).
The Examiner found the disputed limitation would have been obvious
in light of Sato, Bross, the Mrak Article, and the Mrak Patent. Final Act. 4–
5, 8–10. The Examiner found Sato teaches encoding the quantized
coefficients in a scan order and the Mrak Article and Patent teach
determining whether to apply the horizontal and vertical transformation. Id.
at 8–9 (citing Sato ¶¶ 74, 208; Mrak Article at 2, Abstract; Mrak Patent,
Abstract). In particular, the Mrak Article and Patent teach selecting
between: (1) a 2D transform, which applies a horizontal and vertical
transformation, and (2) no transform, where “both horizontal and vertical
transforms” are skipped. Mrak Article at 2. For the first and second scan
orders, the Examiner found “[t]he cited references teach multiple different
types of scan order” (e.g., Bross teaches eight types of scan order), and as a
result, it would have been obvious “to apply one of these scan orders for the
first scan order . . . and another scan order for the second scan order.” Final
Act. 5. In particular, the Examiner pointed to Sato’s raster scan order as the
claimed “first scan order” and the Mrak Article’s zig-zag scanning as the
Appeal 2018-009129
Application 14/533,151

5
claimed “second scan order.” Final Act. 5 (citing Sato ¶ 208; Mrak Article
at 3).
Appellants argue the Mrak Article and Patent teach use of “the same
type of scanning order, zig-zag, . . . in both the case of [2D] transform and
no transform.” Br. 7–8. As a result, because claim 1 requires “the second
scan order [to be] different from the first scan order,” Appellants contend
these references fail to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Id. at 8.
With regard to the other references, Appellants simply state, “Sato, and
Bross clearly fail to disclose” the disputed features. Id. at 9.
In response, the Examiner contends that Appellants attack the
references individually and fail to address the teachings of Sato and Bross.
Ans. 40–41. The Examiner also notes that, contrary to Appellants’
argument, the Final Office Action found Sato’s raster scan order—not
Mrak’s zig-zag scan order—teaches the claimed “first scan order.” Id. at 40.
With regard to the first and second scan orders, the Examiner states:
[T]he Office action cites several references to demonstrate that
there are many well-known scan orders that have been used in
video coding. Therefore, it is obvious to one with ordinary
skills in the arts that one of these scan orders, which is different
than the first scan order (i.e. in raster scan order) [Sato: para.
0208], can be used in case of the transform skip mode (i.e.
when no transformation is performed on the video data) to
further reduce the computational complexity, hence improve the
performance of the encoding and decoding process.
Id. at 44 (emphasis omitted) (second alteration in original). The Examiner
also further finds it would have been obvious to apply Bross’s z-scan order
to the no transform block (to satisfy the claimed “second scan order”)
because “Bross indicates that the z-scan order is typically used for a small
block,” a “4x4 transform skip block” is a small block, and Sato notes the
Appeal 2018-009129
Application 14/533,151

6
importance of improving “coding efficiency without increasing
computational complexity.” Id. at 53 (citing Bross at 1, 11; Sato ¶ 32).
Appellants opted to not file a Reply Brief responding to these factual
findings and rationale.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
they fail to address the rejection as articulated. Although we agree with
Appellants that the Mrak Article discloses use of zig-zag scanning for both
the 2D transform and the no transform modes (Mrak Article at 3), the
Examiner did not rely on the Mrak Article to teach “the second scan order
[is] different from the first scan order” (Final Act. 5, 8, 9–10). Rather, the
Examiner found the references teach a variety of scan modes and it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Mrak’s
determination of transform mode with Sato’s raster scan order and Bross’s
other types of scan orders so that the resulting combination uses a “second
scan order” that is different from the first. Final Act. 5; Ans. 44, 52–54.
Appellants do not identify error in the Examiner’s findings or
rationale. For example, Appellants identify no errors or inaccuracies in the
Examiner’s factual findings or rationale, do not contend the Examiner’s
proposals are beyond the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, and
do not submit that the combination of references would yield undesirable,
unpredictable, or unexpected results. In fact, Appellants do not respond to
the Examiner’s obviousness rationale. Consequently, Appellants have not
shown error in the Examiner’s findings or ultimate conclusion as to
obviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (If an
examiner presents a prima facie case, “the burden of coming forward with
evidence or argument shifts to the applicant.”)
Appeal 2018-009129
Application 14/533,151

7
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art
combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 1, nor do we
find error in the Examiner’s resulting legal conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness anticipation rejection
of independent claim 1 and grouped claims 2–14, which fall therewith.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–14.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED