Amazon Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 15, 2022

2021001174 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2022)

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. 15/954,421 04/16/2018 Yongjun Wu AMZ1P049C1/ P30307-US-CON1 2919 136609 7590 02/15/2022 Weaver Austin Villeneuve & Sampson LLP - AMZ P.O. BOX 70250 OAKLAND, CA 94612-0250 EXAMINER NGUYEN, KATHLEEN V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/15/2022 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): USPTO@wavsip.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YONGJUN WU, CHARLES BENJAMIN FRANKLIN WAGGONER, and AMARSINGH BUCKTHASINGH WINSTON Appeal 2021-001174 Application 15/954,421 Technology Center 2400 Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, AMBER L. HAGY, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21, which are all the pending claims.2 Final Act. 1, 2; Appeal Br. 9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 “Appellant” herein refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Amazon Technologies, Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claims 2, 9, and 16 have been canceled. Appeal Br. 23, 25, 26 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-001174 Application 15/954,421 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s disclosure is directed to “media content encoding and decoding techniques that can use less memory of a viewer’s device.” Spec. ¶ 11. By way of background, Appellant’s Specification describes that media content (such as movies, television shows, audio) can be encoded to result in a compressed bitstream that reduces the number of bits needed to transmit the media content to a user’s device. Id. ¶¶ 3, 11. The decoding needed to reconstruct the media content, however, “can use a large amount of memory resources” of the user’s device. Id. ¶ 3. In particular, Appellant’s Specification notes that, in some video decoding standards, a byte or bit stream format includes a series of network abstraction layer (“NAL”) units similar to packets with headers and payloads with corresponding data. Id. ¶ 42. The boundary of one NAL unit to another NAL unit can be indicated with a three-bit or byte start code prefix, for example “001.” Id. During decoding, a decoder might search for the “001” start code within a bitstream to determine where a new NAL unit begins. Id. Searching for the start code can be computationally intensive, as NAL units may be different sizes. Id. Appellant’s Specification purports to address that problem by describing techniques for providing NAL unit boundary information in manifest data rather than in the bitstream itself. Id. ¶¶ 41-42. Appeal 2021-001174 Application 15/954,421 3 Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A system, comprising: one or more processors and memory configured to: transmit a request for manifest data; receive the manifest data including first information for generating a request for a fragment of media content; transmit a request for the fragment using the manifest data; receive the fragment, the fragment including a plurality of network abstraction layer (NAL) units, each NAL unit in the plurality of NAL units corresponding to a set of bits in a bitstream representing the media content, the fragment further including an indicator for a NAL unit boundary in the bitstream between an end of a first NAL unit and a beginning of a second NAL unit in the plurality of NAL units; extract from the manifest data second information including a location in the bitstream of the indicator in the fragment; and decode a video frame included in the fragment based on the location of the indicator identified by the second information extracted from the manifest data and without processing the bitstream to identify the indicator for the NAL unit boundary. Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-001174 Application 15/954,421 4 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name3 Reference Date Hsu US 2006/0153303 A1 July 13, 2006 Sankaran US 2011/0280314 A1 Nov. 17, 2011 Chen US 2012/0042089 A1 Feb. 16, 2012 Wu US 2012/0163470 A1 June 28, 2012 Wang US 2014/0064384 A1 Mar. 6, 2014 Takahashi US 2017/0148483 A1 May 25, 2017 Huysegems US 2017/0251033 A1 Aug. 31, 2017 REJECTIONS4 Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Wang, Takahashi, Chen, and Huysegems. Final Act. 4-10. Claims 5, 12, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Wang, Takahashi, Chen, Huysegems, and Sankaran. Final Act. 10-12. Claims 6, 13, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Wang, Takahashi, Chen, Huysegems, and Hsu. Final Act. 12-13. Claims 7, 14, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Wang, Takahashi, Chen, Huysegems, and Wu. Final Act. 13-16. 3 All references are identified by the first-named inventor only. 4 The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking adequate written description support (Final Act. 3) has been withdrawn. Ans. 4. Appeal 2021-001174 Application 15/954,421 5 OPINION We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments the Examiner has erred. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We concur with Appellant’s contention the Examiner erred at least in finding that the cited prior art teaches or suggests “decode a video frame included in the fragment based on the location of the indicator identified by the second information extracted from the manifest data and without processing the bitstream to identify the indicator for the NAL unit boundary,” as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 8 and 15.5 Appeal Br. 23, 25, and 26 (Claims App.); see id. at 9-18; Reply Br. 3-5. With regard to the disputed limitation, the Examiner finds Takahashi discloses a “Start Code SC” as “an identifier indicating a start position of a NAL unit in a bitstream which is used to extract NAL unit, hence indicator for a boundary in the bitstream between NAL units.” Final Act. 6 (citing Takahashi ¶¶ 242-243, 287-295, 365-367, Fig. 7). The Examiner also finds Takahashi discloses “map information in which a position of a Start code SC in data is recorded” that “may be set as metadata” and “transmitted together via communication unit.” Id. (citing Takahashi ¶¶ 508-509). The Examiner finds that Takahashi’s disclosure of map information teaches or suggests “extracted second information including a location in the bitstream of the indicator in the fragment from manifest data.” Id. 5 Appellant’s contentions present additional issues. Because the identified issue is dispositive of Appellant’s arguments on appeal, we do not reach the additional issues. Appeal 2021-001174 Application 15/954,421 6 Appellant argues the Examiner’s findings regarding Takahashi are in error. Appeal Br. 10-15. In particular, Appellant contends that Takahashi “describes identifying start codes of NAL units based on header data for a transport [(‘TS’)] packet, rather than via a manifest.” Id. at 14. Appellant notes that the Examiner relies on paragraphs 508 and 509 of Takahashi to support the finding that Takahashi teaches extracting a start code from manifest data. Id. Appellant then explains why that finding is in error: Paragraphs [0508-509] of Takahashi describe “map information in which a position of a start code (SC) in MPEG-2TS format data is recorded may be set as metadata corresponding to the MPEG-2TS format data and be recorded together on an information recording medium or be transmitted together via the communication unit.” It is clear from Takahashi that this map information is not a manifest. That is, Takahashi elsewhere describes playlists, another common term for manifests depending on the streaming protocol, e.g., Apple’s HLS. See Takahashi, [0114-118]. Takahashi’s references to playlists are made without any mention of including map data or metadata of start code locations. Furthermore, paragraphs [0508-509] provide no discussion of whether the position of the start codes are for the processed TS packets to add dummy data, which the rest of the application discusses and uses, or for the location of start codes in the non-processed bitstream, which is not discussed as a potential embodiment. Id. at 14-15. In the Answer, the Examiner responds that a manifest file “means [a] file that includes metadata for another data,” citing paragraph 41 of the Specification. Ans. 6. From this, the Examiner finds that Takahashi’s map information “can be interpreted to be manifest data since it is metadata about the bitstream.” Id. Appellant responds that “[t]he Examiner’s Answer mischaracterizes the definition of manifest file in the present application,” and asserts that “a Appeal 2021-001174 Application 15/954,421 7 manifest file does not simply ‘include metadata for another data.’” Reply Br. 3. Appellant points to paragraph 41 of Specification, cited by the Examiner, which states that a manifest includes a particular type of metadata; that is, “metadata that can be used . . . to form requests for the fragments [of media content] as well as play back those fragments.” Spec.¶ 41; Reply Br. 3. Appellant notes that “Takahashi’s map information is not used for requesting fragments of media content.” Reply Br. 3. We are persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection. First, with regard to the Examiner’s interpretation of “manifest data” as simply “metadata about the bitstream,” we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s reading is overly broad and not consistent with the Specification. In particular, we agree with Appellant’s contention that the Specification describes a “manifest file” as “including metadata that can be used by [a viewer device] to form requests for the fragments as well as play back those fragments.” Spec. ¶ 41. The Specification also states that “manifest data can indicate network abstraction layer (NAL) unit boundaries.” Id. ¶ 42. We are also persuaded by Appellant that the Examiner does not point to sufficient teaching or suggestion in Takahashi (or any other cited reference) to support a finding that the prior art teaches or suggests “manifest data” that includes information (claimed “second information”) for indicating NAL unit boundaries to allow for decoding video fragments, as required by claim 1. Rather, although Takahashi discloses map information in which a position of a start code in MPEG-2TS start data is recorded, and can be used in performing conversion between formats (Takahashi ¶¶ 508-509), the Examiner makes no finding that such information indicates NAL unit boundaries to be used for decoding Appeal 2021-001174 Application 15/954,421 8 fragments, or is used for requesting fragments of media content, as required by claim 1. In short, for the reasons argued by Appellant (Appeal Br. 9-18; Reply Br. 3-5), and as further addressed herein, we are persuaded of Examiner error in finding the cited art teaches or suggests at least “decode a video frame included in the fragment based on the location of the indicator identified by the second information extracted from the manifest data and without processing the bitstream to identify the indicator for the NAL unit boundary,” as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 8 and 15. Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15, or of their respective dependent claims. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21 are reversed. Appeal 2021-001174 Application 15/954,421 9 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18 103 Wang, Takahashi, Chen, Huysegems 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18 5, 12, 19 103 Wang, Takahashi, Chen, Huysegems, Sankaran 5, 12, 19 6, 13, 20 103 Wang, Takahashi, Chen, Huysegems, Hsu 6, 13, 20 7, 14, 21 103 Wang, Takahashi, Chen, Huysegems, Wu 7, 14, 21 Overall Outcome 1, 3-8, 10- 15, 17-21 REVERSED