Ex Parte Chen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 19, 201713124641 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/124,641 05/26/2011 Ying Chen 042933/437633 7936 10949 7590 Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP c/o Alston & Bird LLP Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street Suite 4000 Charlotte, NC 28280-4000 EXAMINER MAHMUD, FARHAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/21/2017 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): u sptomail @ alston .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YING CHEN and MISKA HANNUKSELA Appeal 2017-002735 Application 13/124,641 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, HUNG H. BUI and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 4—11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We reverse. Introduction The invention is directed to “video coding three-dimensional (3D) video content where depth map images are present.” Specification, paragraph 1. Appeal 2017-002735 Application 13/124,641 Illustrative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized) 6. An apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and computer program code configured to, with the processor, cause the apparatus to: encode a bitstream including a first texture picture, a first depth map picture associated with the first texture picture, a second texture picture, and a second depth map picture associated with a second texture picture, wherein the first depth map picture belongs to a first view and the second depth map picture belongs to a second view and the first depth map picture and the second depth map picture are encoded as auxiliary pictures coded independently of the corresponding texture pictures; predict the second depth map picture from the first depth map picture using a first motion vector, predict the second texture picture from the first texture picture using a second motion vector, and encode the first motion vector and the second motion vector into a bitstream. Rejection on Appeal Claims 1,5, 6, 10, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yin (WO 2007/047736 A2; published April 26, 2007) and Hiraga (U.S. Patent 7,009,606 B2; issued March 7, 2006). Final Rejection 4-10. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 26, 2016), the Reply Brief (filed December 7, 2016), the Answer (mailed October 7, 2016) and the Final Rejection (mailed March 23, 2015) for the respective details. Appellants argue Yin’s first embodiment “encodes the first stereoscopic image as a base layer and the second stereoscopic image as an 2 Appeal 2017-002735 Application 13/124,641 enhancement layer” and therefore “the bit stream does not include a first depth map picture associated with the first texture picture or a second depth map picture associated with a second texture picture.” Appeal Brief 6 (citing Yin, page 13, lines 6-8). Appellants also argue Yin’s second embodiment is “equally clear that one view is encoded as the base layer and a depth map is used in an enhancement layer” and therefore “does not include a second texture picture or a second depth map associated with the second texture picture.” Appeal Brief 6 (citing Yin, page 14, lines 16—18). Appellants contend Hiraga discloses a “pseudo-three-dimensional image generating method” that “includes acquiring a first image and a second image which have depth information” and because the first and second images include the depth information, Hiraga does not disclose a method including “a bit stream which includes a first depth map picture associated with the first texture picture or a second depth map picture associated with the second texture picture.” Appeal Brief 6—7 (citing Hiraga, column 4, lines 58—61). Appellants further contend: even if the depth information of the first and second images could be construed as an associated depth map picture, which the Applicant asserts that they cannot, the first and second images have, e.g. include, the depth information, therefore the depth information cannot be coded as auxiliary pictures encoded separately from the corresponding texture picture, as set forth in one form or another by the independent claims. Appeal Brief 7. Appellants conclude: Since neither of the cited references teaches or suggests “a bitstream including a first texture picture, a first depth map 3 Appeal 2017-002735 Application 13/124,641 picture associated with the first texture picture, a second texture picture, and a second depth map picture associated with the second texture picture, wherein the first depth map picture belongs to a first view and the second depth map picture belongs to a second view and the first depth map picture and the second depth map picture are encoded as auxiliary pictures coded independently of the corresponding texture pictures,” as set forth in various forms by the independent claims, it logically follows that no proper combination of the cited references teaches or suggests these same recitations. Appeal Brief 7. The Examiner finds Yin discloses a scalable video encoder and for “each spatial layer, a motion compensated temporal decomposition is performed.” Answer 3 (citing Yin page 5, lines 5—8; page 10, lines 25—39). The Examiner finds “[s]ince [Yin discloses] a video recorder, it is well understood that a piece of content will have more than one frame with a base layer” and therefore Yin discloses “that the base layers are encoded with a depth map or disparity map in an enhancement layer using a prediction from the first stereoscopic view.” Answer 3. The Examiner further finds Yin discloses motion vectors used for motion compensation of its auxiliary components where one of the auxiliary components is “code depth or disparity map data.” Answer 4 (citing Yin page 3, lines 5—7; page 14, lines 16-21). The Examiner finds “mere fact that the video data can be decoded without decoding the depth maps, means the depth map data is encoded as auxiliary pictures, independent of the corresponding texture pictures.” Appeal Brief 4—5. The Examiner further finds Yin discloses additional 3-D metadata is provided to assist in the rendering process through a supplemental enhancement information message (SEI) and therefore Yin 4 Appeal 2017-002735 Application 13/124,641 further discloses the depth map metadata is an independent entity. Answer 5 (citing Yin page 14, lines 22—28). The Examiner also finds Hiraga has elements KF1 and KF2 and consequently “depicts two different frames captured from different perspectives of the same element” and therefore Hiraga discloses the “first depth map picture belongs to a first view and the second depth map picture belongs to a second view” as claimed. Answer 7. We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive and disagree with the Examiner’s findings. Appellants argue, “Yin merely discloses encoding a depth map as an enhancement layer using prediction from the first stereoscopic view (which is encoded as a base layer). There is no prediction of a new depth map from the depth map encoded as an enhancement layer in the cited portion of Yin.” Reply Brief 4. Appellants further argue: Yin merely discloses that MPEG-4 part 2 video object syntax includes multiple auxiliary components which are coded as gray- level images. Yin discloses that motion vectors of a video object can be used for motion compensation of its auxiliary components and that one use of auxiliary components is to code depth or disparity map data. Nothing in the cited portion of Yin discloses, teaches, or suggests the first depth map picture and the second depth map picture are encoded as auxiliary pictures coded independently of the corresponding texture pictures. Reply Brief 4. We agree with Appellants’ arguments that Yin does not disclose the subject matter as the Examiner finds. We also find that Hiraga fails to address Yin’s noted deficiencies. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 6, 10, and 15 commensurate in scope, as well as, dependent claims 5 and 14. 5 Appeal 2017-002735 Application 13/124,641 DECISION The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 14, and 15 is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation