Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 17, 2016

11546638 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111546,638 10/11/2006
10949 7590 10/19/2016
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
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ye-Kui Wang
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.
042933/412689 3826
EXAMINER
MCINNISH, KEVIN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/19/2016 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YE-KUI WANG and MISKA M. HANNUKSELA
Appeal2015-002956
Application 11/546,638
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
SCOTT B. HO\VARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-002956
Application 11/546,638
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
49---67. Claims 1--48 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
The claims are directed to a system and method for efficient scalable
stream adaptation. Claims 49 and 64, reproduced below, are illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
49. A method of encoding a sequence of pictures into a sequence
of access units, the method comprising:
encoding a first picture of the sequence of pictures into a first
access unit of said sequence of access units, the first access unit
comprising a non-instantaneous decoding refresh (IDR) picture in
a base layer and an IDR picture in an enhancement layer, the IDR
picture being decodable without inter prediction from any picture
prior to the IDR picture in decoding order in the enhancement layer,
encoding at least one access unit preceding the first access
unit in decoding order, the at least one access unit including at least
one reference picture in the enhancement layer, and
including an indication into the sequence of access units to
cause the IDR picture to mark the at least one reference picture as
unused for reference.
64. A method of signaling low-to-high temporally scalable
layer switching in a video bit stream comprising a lower temporal
layer and at least one higher temporal layer, comprising:
indicating a plurality of low-to-high temporal layer
switching points within a data structure for the at least one higher
temporal layer in a file format level.
2
Appeal2015-002956
Application 11/546,638
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Notoya et al. ("Notoya") US 2004/0161033 Al
Yin et al. US 2007 /0286283 Al
Aug. 19, 2004
Dec. 13, 2007
Julien Reichel, Scalable Video Coding - Working Draft 3, Joint Video Team
(JVT) ofISO/IEC MPEG & ITU-T VCEG, (ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11
and ITU-T SG16 Q.6), 16th Meeting, pp. 1-134 July, 2005.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 49-60 and 62---66 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Reichel in view of Yin.
Claims 61 and 67 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reichel in view of Yin and further in view ofNotoya.
ANALYSIS
Claims 49-58
With respect to claims 49-58, Appellants argue the claims together.
(App. Br. 14). We select claim 49 as the illustrative claim and address
Appellants' arguments thereto.
Appellants contend that the Reichel reference does not teach or
suggest the claimed "including an indication into the sequence of access
units to cause the IDR picture in said enhancement layer to mark the at least
one reference picture as unused for reference." (App. Br. 15).
Appellants contend:
The Examiner refers to § [0082] of Yin. Therein, an example
is disclosed where the channel switch happens at the base-layer
3
Appeal2015-002956
Application 11/546,638
(BL) IDR picture. The enhancement layer (EL) picture in the same
access unit is EP /EB and hence cannot be decoded (due to the
absence of some of its decoded reference pictures). Instead an
upsampled IDR picture will be used to represent the decoded
enhancement layer P/B-picture (EP/EB) in the same access unit as
a reference for prediction of subsequent EP /EB in the EL, in
decoding order. To limit the drift caused by using the upsampled
IDR picture in place of the decoded EP/EB picture of the same
access unit, the encoder has used "IDR-like constraints" for the
following enhancement layer EP/EB pictures, in decoding order,
i.e. the encoder has constrained the following enhancement-layer
EP/EB pictures, in decoding order, not to use EL reference pictures
preceding, in decoding order, the access unit with the BL IDR
picture.
(App. Br. 15-16).
The Examiner maintains that Appellants argue the references
individually. (Ans. 7-8). With respect to Appellants' arguments regarding the
Yin reference, the Examiner disagrees with Appellants' contentions, and the
Examiner maintains:
As is well known in the H.264 standard, an IDR picture causes
the decoder to mark all picture in the reference buffer as "unused
for reference" so that all subsequent pictures do not refer to any
pictures prior to said IDR picture. For more information, see
"Overview of the H.264/ A VC Video Coding Standard" by
Thomas Wiegand and Gary J. Sullivan published July 2003 (page
5, section G). Moreover, it is noted that Reichel defers to the
A VC standard regarding marking pictures as "unused for
reference" on page 63. Turning to the Yin reference, Paragraph
[0082] discloses placing IDR-like constraints on the
enhancement layer images which Yin defines as "the following
inter-pictures cannot predict from the pictures prior to the I
picture. This is consistent with the functionality of an IDR
picture which Yin explicitly alludes to in the phrase "IDR-like
constraints" are put on the following inter-pictures. So, one
skilled in the art, when reading the Yin reference and Reichel
references together, is easily cognizant of marking enhancement
4
Appeal2015-002956
Application 11/546,638
layer frames as unused for reference since IDR-like constraints
are implemented in the enhancement layer according to Yin, and
access units can be different from each other in ways including
scalability and idr_pic_id according to Reichel. Appellant's
arguments are a classic example of piecemeal analysis of the
references, which is improper because one cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871(CCPA1981); In re Merck
& Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231USPQ375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
(Ans. 8-9). We disagree with the Examiner's response to Appellants'
contention. Moreover, we find the Examiner relies upon additional
extrinsic evidence which was not expressly relied upon in the grounds
of the rejection. Additionally, the Examiner identifies paragraph 82 of
the Yin reference (which is the only paragraph identified in the
grounds of the rejection) to support this portion of the obviousness
rejection. We find paragraph 82 of the Yin reference merely refers to
"IDR-like constraints" and does not expressly teach IDR pictures (in
the H.264/ A VC standard, instantaneous decoding refresh (IDR)).
Additionally, Appellants argue:
§ [0009] and § [0051] of the present application disclose a
definition of IDR pictures in an access unit when discussing about
scalable coding: "either all pictures in an access unit are IDR
pictures or no picture in an access unit is an IDR picture". This is
also confirmed by Reichel (S.7.4.1, p. 40): "Either all pictures with
an identical value of picture order count but different values of
dependency_id or quality_level, are coded as IDR pictures, or no
picture for a specific value of picture order count is coded as IDR
picture." Consequently, at the time of filing the present application,
the state-of-the-art scalability of an IDR picture refers only to a
situation where the base layer picture of an access unit comprises
an IDR picture and scalably encoded pictures on one or more
enhancement layers in said access unit are IDR pictures, as well. S.
5
Appeal2015-002956
Application 11/546,638
7.4.1.2.4 of Reichel cited by the Examiner only provides for the
possibility to unambiguously identify the pictures of an access unit
on different scalability layers.
On the other hand, according to the definition in S.7.4.1 by
Reichel, if the base layer comprises a non-instantaneous decoding
refresh (IDR) picture, then all pictures of the access unit in the base
layer are non-IDR pictures.
(Reply Br. 1-2). Appellants further contend:
The Examiner submits that§ [0082] of Yin would disclose
"including an indication into the sequence of access units to
cause the IDR picture in said enhancement layer to mark the at
least one reference picture as unused for reference." This is,
however, not true.
There is no indication IDR picture in the enhancement
layer of Yin: the enhancement layer comprises an enhancement
layer P/B-picture (EP/EB), which is replaced by an upsampled
IDR picture (upsampled from the base layer IDR picture) for
decoding purposes.
§ [0082] of Yin discloses a channel switch that happens at
the base-layer (BL) IDR picture. The enhancement layer (EL)
picture in the same access unit is a bi-directionally predicted
EP /EB picture and hence it cannot be decoded due to the absence
of some of its decoded reference pictures. Instead, an up sampled
IDR picture will be used to represent the decoded EP /EB in the
same access unit as a reference for prediction of subsequent
EP/EB in the EL, in decoding order.
The Examiner states that upsampling an IDR picture is
equivalent to generating an enhancement layer IDR picture. This
is naturally not true. An enhancement layer IDR picture, by
definition, should provide an independently decodable starting
point for error free decoding of the subsequent enhancement
layer pictures in decoding order.
6
Appeal2015-002956
Application 11/546,638
(Reply Br. 2-3). We agree with Appellants that "Yin does not disclose
'including an indication into the sequence of access units to cause the IDR
picture in said enhancement layer to mark the at least one reference picture
as unused for reference."' (Reply Br. 3).
In an ex parte appeal, the Board "is basically a board of review - we
review ... rejections made by patent examiners." Ex parte Gambogi,
62 USPQ2d 1209, 1211(BPAI2001). "The review authorized by 35 U.S.C.
Section 134 is not a process whereby the examiner ... invite[ s] the [B]oard
to examine the application and resolve patentability in the first instance." Ex
parte Braeken, 54 USPQ2d 1110, 1112 (BP AI 1999).
Because the Examiner paints with a broad brush in making the
obviousness rejection, we are left to speculate as to the precise details of
how each argued claim limitation is taught or suggested by the combination
relied on by the Examiner. Such conjecture would require us to resort to
speculation, unfounded assumptions, or hindsight reconstruction. See In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). We will not resort to such
speculation or assumptions to cure the deficiencies in the factual basis in
order to support the Examiner's rejection.
As a result, we conclude that the rejection of claim 49 lacks the
requisite specificity needed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability (see In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)),
and that burden has not been met in a manner enabling proper review.
Independent claims 53, 54, and 58 contain similar limitations which we
found deficient in the rejection of illustrative claim 49. Therefore, we cannot
7
Appeal2015-002956
Application 11/546,638
sustain the rejection of independent claims 53, 54, and 58 and dependent claims
50-52 and 55-57.
Claims 59----67
With respect to claims 59----67, Appellants do not set forth separate
arguments for patentability of these claims and address all claims together.
(App. Br. 14). Therefore, we select independent claim 64 as the
representative claim for this group.
In this decision, we have considered only those arguments actually
made by Appellants. Arguments which Appellants could have made, but did
not make in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
With respect to representative independent claim 64, Appellants
generally contend that the prior art references do not teach or suggest
"'including an indication into the sequence of access units to cause the IDR
picture in said enhancement layer to mark the at least one reference picture
as unused for reference,' as recited in the independent claims in some form
or another." App. Br. 14. Applying a reasonable reading of the plain
language of claim 59 viewed in light of Appellants' Specification, we
disagree with Appellants that claims 59----67 include the same or equivalent
limitations as those argued with respect to representative independent claim
49, addressed above. Consequently, Appellants' arguments are not
commensurate in scope with representative independent claim 64. As a
result, Appellants have not set forth separate arguments for patentability
directed to the express claim language. Therefore, we proforma affirm the
Examiner's rejection of claims 59----67 because Appellants have not shown
8
Appeal2015-002956
Application 11/546,638
error in the Examiner's factual findings and conclusion of obviousness.
(Ans. 7-8).
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 49-58, but Appellants have
not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 59-67.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims
49-58, and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 59----67. 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-IN-PART
9