13156552 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2017)

Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 17, 2017

13156552 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2017)

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. 13/156,552 06/09/2011 Shan Liu 251363-1790 5296 129268 7590 03/21/2017 EXAMINER McClure Qualey & Rodack LLP 3100 Interstate North Circle SE BECK, LERON Suite 150 Atlanta, GA 30339 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2487 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/21/2017 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): 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 SHAN LIU, ZHI ZHOU, and SHAW-MIN LEI Appeal 2016-004598 Application 13/156,5521 Technology Center 2400 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and JOHN D. HAM ANN, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s non- final rejection of claims 1—4, 8—12, 15, 35, and 36. Claims 5—7, 13, 14, and 16—34 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify Mediatek Singapore PTE. Ltd. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.) Appeal 2016-004598 Application 13/156,552 THE INVENTION Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) with reduced complexity transform unit partitioning. (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of processing transform unit of video data, the method comprising: receiving a coding unit of video data; partitioning the coding unit into one or more prediction units (PUs) according to 2Nx2N, 2NxN, Nx2N or NxN partition type, wherein a prediction mode for prediction processing of said one or more prediction units is determined for each of said one or more prediction units; generating residues of the coding unit according to said one or more prediction units for the coding unit; and partitioning the residues of the coding unit into one or more transform units by prohibiting the transform units from crossing any PU boundary corresponding to the PUs having different sizes from the transform units, wherein the size of said one or more transform units is square and the size of said one or more transform units depends on both sizes of the coding unit and said one or more prediction units, wherein a maximum width and a maximum height of said one or more transform units is equal to a minimum of PU width and PU height for a 2Nx2N coding unit with the 2NxN, Nx2N or NxN partition type. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1—3, 8—12, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheon (US 8,208,742 B2, issued June 26, 2012), Ye et al. (US 2010/0086049 Al, pub. Apr. 8, 2010), and 2 Appeal 2016-004598 Application 13/156,552 Panusopone et al. (US 2012/0201298 Al, pub. Aug. 9, 2012). (Non-Final Act. 3-6.) The Examiner rejected claims 4, 35, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheon, Ye, Panusopone, and Zhao et al. (US 2011/0249743 Al, pub. Oct. 13, 2011). (Non-Final Act. 6-7.) ISSUE ON APPEAL Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following dispositive issue:2 Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Cheon, Ye, and Panusopone teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitation: wherein a maximum width and a maximum height of said one or more transform units is equal to a minimum of PU width and PU height for a 2Nx2N coding unit with the 2NxN, Nx2N or NxN partition type___ . . . and the similar limitations recited in independent claim 10. (App. Br. 5— 15.) ANALYSIS For the limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Ye of video encoding in which transform units are of varying sizes in relation to prediction units, including of equal size. (Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 8; Ye 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the findings of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Aug. 18, 2015); the Reply Brief (filed Mar. 29, 2016); the Non-Final Office Action (mailed July 21, 2015); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Feb. 8, 2016) for the respective details. 3 Appeal 2016-004598 Application 13/156,552 62, 63.) The Examiner also relies on the disclosure in Panusopone of video encoding in which the size of a transform unit is based on a prediction unit type and a coding unit size, including conditions wherein the transform unit size equals the prediction unit size. (Non-Final Act. 4—5; Panusopone Fig, 4C, 1127, 43, and 53.) The Examiner’s rejection is based on interpreting the claim limitation such that: [T]he claim doesn’t state that only a max height and width of transform is equal to only a min Pu width and height. Therefore, broadly Ye teaches that the transform size in general is equal to the prediction unit regardless of a min or max. One of ordinary skilled [sic] in the art would understand that the width and height is encompassed within the entire size of the units. Therefore, if the transform size equals the Prediction unit size, the boundaries will not cross. (Ans. 8.) Appellants correctly argue this claim interpretation is in error, as it ignores and contradicts the explicit requirement set forth in the claim, that “a maximum width and a maximum height of said one or more transform units is equal to a minimum of PU width and PU height. . . .” (Reply Br. 2.) We are persuaded that, when viewed in the light of the plain language of the claim, the cited references do not teach or suggest the subject matter of the claim limitation at issue. Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner does not provide prima facie support for the rejections. “[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Therefore, on the record before us, we are 4 Appeal 2016-004598 Application 13/156,552 constrained to find the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claims 1 and 10 as obvious. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 10 over Cheon, Ye, and Panusopone. We also do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 15 over Cheon, Ye, and Panusopone, and of claims 4, 35, and 36 over Cheon, Ye, Panusopone, and Zhao, which claims are dependent from claims 1 or 10. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—4, 8—12, 15, 35, and 36. REVERSED 5