12224817 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2017)

Ex Parte Pandit et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 5, 2017

12224817 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 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. 12/224,817 09/04/2008 Purvin Bibhas Pandit PU070032 3028 24498 7590 05/09/2017 Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations THOMSON Licensing LLC 4 Research Way 3rd Floor Princeton, NJ 08543 EXAMINER LAMONT, BENJAMIN S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2461 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/09/2017 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): uspto@technicolor.com pat. verlangieri @ technicolor.com russell. smith @ technicolor.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PURVIN BIBHAS PANDIT, YEPING SU, PENG YIN, CRISTINA GOMILA, and JILL MACDONALD BOYCE Appeal 2017-002171 Application 12/224,817 Technology Center 2400 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 22 and 54—56. Claims 1—21 and 23—53 are canceled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2017-002171 Application 12/224,817 THE INVENTION The claims are directed to multi-view video coding. Spec., Title. Claim 22, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 22. A method for generating a multi-view video content including at least a base view and another view, comprising: decoding the another view corresponding to the multi view video content by selecting one of two pre-defmed slice types, wherein the two pre-defmed slice types are an Instantaneous Decoding Refresh (IDR) slice type and a non- Instantaneous Decoding Refresh (non-IDR) slice type, wherein a Network Abstraction Layer (NAL) unit type 23 is used for the non-IDR slice type and a Network Abstraction Layer (NAL) unit type 22 is used for the IDR slices, wherein the NAL unit type 23 is used to signal a coded non-IDR picture in multi-view extension and the NAL unit type 22 is used to signal a coded IDR picture in the multi-view extension. RELERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Wangetal. US 2007/0110150 A1 May 17, 2007 (“Wang”) Lee et al., H264/MPEG-4 AVC-basedMulti-view Video Coding (MVC), ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29IWG11, International Organization for Standardization Organisation International, Sejong University, Tailand (January 2006) (“Lee”). 2 Appeal 2017-002171 Application 12/224,817 REJECTION1 The Examiner rejected claims 22 and 54—56 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee and Wang. APPELLANTS’ CONTENTION The Examiner’s interpretation of the independent claims is flawed in concluding there is no requirement for the “another view” to have an IDR frame. Reply Br. 10. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claims 22 and 54—56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee and Wang. We agree with Appellants’ conclusions as to this rejection of the claims. The Examiner finds Lee’s multi-view group of pictures (GOP) including one instantaneous decoding refresh (IDR) picture in every multi view GOP as depicted in Figure 1, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of decoding the “another view” (i.e., a view other than a base view) by selecting between two predetermined slice-types, i.e., an IDR and a non-IDR slice type. Final Act. 5. Appellants argue only Lee’s view 1 includes both IDR and non-IDR pictures (i.e., views with and without I- frames) and “none of the other views comprises an I-ffame .... (and therefore cannot comprise an IDR frame.)” App. Br. 15. The Examiner responds by agreeing “only one view in [Fjigure 1 of Lee contains an IDR 1 The rejection of claims 22 and 54—56 under 35 U.S.C. § 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, has been withdrawn. Ans. 2. 3 Appeal 2017-002171 Application 12/224,817 picture.” Ans. 2. However, the Examiner concludes “the claim language requires the another view to have only ‘one of’ IDR slices or non-IDR slices. Not both.” Ans. 3. Thus, the Examiner finds Appellants’ argument that Lee fails to disclose another view having both IDR and non-IDR slice types is not commensurate in scope with the claims. Id. Appellants reply, arguing “[ajthough the present claim language does not require both views to include IDR slices (although both views may be IDR slices), the present claim language does require the capability to comprise an IDR slice in ‘the another view.’” Reply Br. 10. Because Lee fails to disclose I-frames in views other than view 1, there can be no selection of “an IDR slice from ‘one of two pre defined slice types’ in view 2 at least because Lee only comprise[s] I-frames in view 1. Therefore, Lee does not teach or suggest at least ‘decoding the another view corresponding to the multi-view video content by selecting one of two pre-defmed slice types,”’ Id. We agree with Appellants. The claims require selecting one of two pre-defmed slice types. A reasonable interpretation of “selecting” in the context of these claims requires something to select between, i.e., have available both IDR and non-IDR slice types from which to select. In particular, if, as found by the Examiner, Lee’s views 2, 3, etc., i.e., views corresponding to the claimed “another view,” do not include IDR pictures, then there are not two slice-types (IDR and non-IDR) from which to select one slice type. Each of independent claims 54—56 include a similar recitation regarding the “selecting” function. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 22 and 54—56 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over Lee and Wang. 4 Appeal 2017-002171 Application 12/224,817 DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 22 and 54—56 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over Lee and Wang. REVERSED 5