Ex Parte Huang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 28, 201814235080 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/235,080 01/26/2014 Yu-Wen Huang 129268 7590 10/02/2018 McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP 280 Interstate North Circle SE Suite 550 Atlanta, GA 30339 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 251363-1400 3323 EXAMINER SULLIVAN, TYLER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2487 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/02/2018 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): uspatents@mqrlaw.com dan.mcclure@mqrlaw.com gina.silverio@mqrlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YU-WEN HUANG, CHIA-YANG TSAI, CHING-YEH CHEN, CHIH-MING FU, and SHAW-MINLEI 1 Appeal2018-003248 Application 14/235,080 Technology Center 2400 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11-15, and 17-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Mediatek, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal2018-003248 Application 14/235,080 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention is directed to a "method and apparatus for reducing the complexity of [an] Adaptive Loop Filter (ALF) by using ALF coefficients with constrained data range." Spec. ,r 2. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for processing of coded video using an ALF (adaptive loop filter) circuit, wherein parameters of the ALF comprise a center coefficient and at least one non-center coefficient, the method comprising: receiving reconstructed video data corresponding to coded video data; receiving the center coefficient and said at least one non- center coefficient, wherein the center coefficient is disposed at a center position of a filter shape formed by the center coefficient and the at least one non-center coefficient, wherein a value of the center coefficient is clipped to a first constrained data range if the value of the center coefficient falls outside the first constrained data range, and wherein a value of each non-center coefficient is clipped to a second constrained data range if the value of each non-center coefficient falls outside the second constrained data range, and wherein the first constrained data range of the center coefficient is different from the second constrained data range of said at least one non-center coefficient; and filtering by the ALF circuit to the reconstructed video data using the parameters. REJECTIONS and REFERENCES The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3---6, 9, 11, 12, 15, and 17-19 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) based upon Bjontegaard (US 2013/0003871 Al, published Jan. 3, 2013), Ugur (US 8,416,861 B2, issued Apr. 9, 2013), and Zhang (US 2004/0076333 Al, published Apr. 22, 2004). Final Act. 8-16. 2 Appeal2018-003248 Application 14/235,080 The Examiner rejected claims 7, 8, 13, and 14 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. I03(a) based upon Bjontegaard, Uger, Zhang, and Coban (US 2013/0010865 Al). Final Act. 16-18. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds "Bjon teaches a 2D adaptive loop filter (ALF) in which the filter may also be set-up to perform 1-D ALF filtering and teaches coefficient constraints," "U gur teaches more specific constraints to use for coefficient selection," and "Zhang teaches similarly to U gur coefficient constrained ranges for searching for coefficients for an ALF and more clearly teaches each coefficient may have different constraints." Final Act. 8. 2 The Examiner reasons it "would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bjon's teachings with Ugur's and Zhang's considerations of constraints on coefficient selection." Id. Appellants contend the Examiner errs, arguing Bjontegaard, Ugur, and Zhang "either individually or in combination, do not disclose or suggest that the first constrained data range of the center coefficient is different from the second constrained data range of said at least one non-center coefficient," as claimed. App. Br. 7, 8, 9. Specifically, Appellants contend although Bjontegaard teaches converting coefficients to an integer, it does not teach or suggest the claimed constraints on the center coefficient and non-center coefficient. App. Br. 8. Appellants further argue U gur is deficient as only positive and negative image pixel values having an integer 2 The Examiner refers to Bjontegaard as "Bjon" for efficiency throughout the Final Action and Answer. 3 Appeal2018-003248 Application 14/235,080 range of [O, 255], limiting "the coefficients by restricting the sum of positive coefficients to being less than a number (e.g., 128) and restricting the sum of negative coefficients to being larger than a negative number (e.g., -128)." Id. That is, Appellants assert, Ugur only teaches "constraints for the sum of positive coefficients and the sum of negative coefficients rather than constraints for coefficients at different filter positions (e.g., center and non- center)." App, Br. 9. Appellants further contend Zhang's paragraph 72 teaches a search region is characterized by its center ( the current minimum filter). App. Br. 9. Thus, Appellants argue, Zhang teaches a search region, which is a set of filters, rather than coefficients, surrounding a specified filter. A reduction in candidate filters "may be based on the position of the filter candidates relative to the current minimum filter." Id. Therefore, Appellants assert Zhang fails to teach or suggest "anything related to center and non-center coefficients of a filter, much less using different constrained data range to clip these coefficients. We do not agree. Initially, we agree with the Examiner Appellants are arguing the references separately and not as a combination. Ans. 14. Appellants argue none of the references teach center and non-center coefficients, but do not address the Examiner's findings concerning the particular teaching of the references as applied in rejecting the claims or explain why the teachings could not be combined. Thus, we find the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants' arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Thus, we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein. Ans. 10-19; Final Act. 8-18. Specifically, as the Examiner finds, the claims only require "two 'different[ ... ] constrained data range[ s]. "' Ans. 11. Bjontegaard teaches a constrained data 4 Appeal2018-003248 Application 14/235,080 range applied to the non-center coefficients (see ,r,r 50, 63---65) and a second constrained data range for the center coefficient (see ,r,r 66---67). Id. We also agree with the Examiner "there is no limitation the constrained data ranges necessarily be independent," they only need to be different. Id. The Examiner cites U gur for the constrained data ranges, which are similar to those recited in Appellants' Specification. Ans, 12. The Examiner also finds the non-center coefficients would be freely selected from the constrained data range based on the optimization teachings of Bjontegaard. Id. The Examiner then cites Zhang, which is similar to Ugur "in which constrained data ranges ... are applied to coefficients in a filter design process, .... after the non-center coefficients are designed," Bjontegaard's teachings are "employed to compute the center coefficient." Ans. 13-14. Appellants do not persuasively address these findings. Appellants contend Zhang's search region is characterized by its center ( current minimum filter), search ranges of filter coefficients within the candidate filters, and shape. App. Br 9; Reply Br. 5. However, this argument is an improper attack on Zhang individually; whereas the rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Particularly, the combination of Zhang's teachings of different filters having different constraints combined with Bjontegaard's teachings of a center coefficient and a non-center coefficient, as set forth by the Examiner, would result in the argued claim limitation. One skilled in the art would have known that center and non-center coefficients can be different in light of Zhang. See, e.g., Zhang ,r 72. That is, Zhang teaches different filters, but given there are only two possibilities for the coefficients, same or different, 5 Appeal2018-003248 Application 14/235,080 it is a merely a design choice. See Ans. 13; see also KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007): If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation,§ 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Furthermore: [ w ]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. Id at 421. We further agree with the Examiner Appellants argue limitations not found in the claims. Ans. 14. Thus, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner's ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, independent claims 9, 15, and 19, argued for substantially the same reasons, and dependent claims 3---6, 11, 12, 17, and 18, argued for their dependency on their respective independent claim. We also summarily sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 7, 8, 13, and 14, for which Appellants do not present arguments. See Final Act. 16-18; App. Br. 6. 6 Appeal2018-003248 Application 14/235,080 DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-9, 11-15, and 17-19 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation