Ex Parte Yang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2018

12998643 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/998,643 05/12/2011 Hua Yang
24498 7590 12/04/2018
Vincent E. Duffy
THOMSON Licensing
19868 Collins Road
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
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.
PU080179 1941
EXAMINER
MUNG,ONS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2018 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):
mike.pugel@eurekovation.com
vincent.duffy@technicolor.com
Patricia. Verlangieri@InterDigital.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
ExparteHUA YANG
Appeal2018-004514
Application 12/998,643 1
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Thomson Licensing
DTV. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-004514
Application 12/998,643
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is directed to removing I-frame flicker artifacts
in Groups-of-Pictures (GOPs) multi-thread video encoding. Spec. ,r 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of encoding video comprising:
forming multiple groups of pictures (GOPs);
beginning encoding of parallel threads of the multiple
GOPs, wherein each of the multiple GOPs include an initial I-
frame followed by a series of P-frames;
applying coding for removing flicker in each I-frame in
the multiple GOPs which are consecutive, using a first
reference frame, wherein when there is a coded P frame in the
preceding GOP, the first reference frame is derived from said
coded P frame; and
applying coding for removing flicker in the last P-frame
in the series of the preceding GOP using a second reference
frame, wherein when there is a coded I-frame in the GOP
immediately after the preceding GOP, the second reference
frame is derived from said coded I-frame.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1--4, 7, and 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Zhao et al. (US 2008/0025397
Al; published Jan. 31, 2008) ("Zhao"), Robey et al. (US 2006/0114995 Al;
published June 1, 2006) ("Robey"), and Keller et al. (US 7,023,924 Bl;
issued Apr. 4, 2006) ("Keller").
2
Appeal2018-004514
Application 12/998,643
Claims 5, 6, 9, 10, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Zhao, Robey, Keller, and Kurata
(US 2008/0175439 Al; published July 24, 2008) ("Kurata").
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Zhao, Robey, Keller, and Woods et al.
(US 2006/0193388 Al; published Aug. 31, 2006) ("Woods").
ANALYSIS
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Zhao, Robey, and
Keller teaches or suggests
applying coding for removing flicker in each I-frame in
the multiple GOPs which are consecutive, using a first
reference frame, wherein when there is a coded P frame in the
preceding GOP, the first reference frame is derived from said
coded P frame; and
applying coding for removing flicker in the last P-frame
in the series of the preceding GOP using a second reference
frame, wherein when there is a coded I-frame in the GOP
immediately after the preceding GOP, the second reference
frame is derived from said coded I-frame,
as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claim 11?
Appellant contends Zhao does not teach or suggest the disputed
limitations for various reasons, including that Zhao does not teach "coding
an I-frame using a first reference frame from another GOP" and "does not
show coding a P-frame using an I-frame in another GOP as a reference."
App. Br. 7-8. Appellant further contends, without more explanation, that
Robey does not overcome the shortcomings of Zhao, and Keller does not
overcome the shortcomings of Zhao and Robey. App. Br. 8.
3
Appeal2018-004514
Application 12/998,643
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner relies on
Keller, not Zhao, to teach or suggest the disputed limitations. See Final Act.
5---6 (citing Keller Figs. 36-39, 43, 44, 50, col. 2:45-3:6, 37:6-17, 42:4--54),
Ans. 3--4 (the disputed limitations "are explicitly rejected using the citations
of the secondary reference Keller"). Appellant's arguments against Zhao
alone do not persuasively rebut challenge the Examiner's findings as to
Keller, and Appellant's arguments as to Keller do not sufficiently explain
why Keller does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations. Indeed, with
respect to Keller, Appellant merely recites the claim language and asserts
that Keller does not teach the disputed limitation (see App. Br. 8), which is
not sufficient to show error in the Examiner's findings. See In re Lovin, 652
F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art."); cf In re
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the
function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by
an appellant, looking for non-obvious distinctions over the prior art.").
Accordingly, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred
in rejecting independent claims 1 and 11 and dependent claims 2--4, 7, and
12-14, which were not argued separately.
With respect to dependent claims 5, 6, 9, 10, and 15, Appellant argues
Kurata "adds nothing to Zhao, Robey and Keller" to teach or suggest the
disputed limitations recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 9-10. With
respect to dependent claim 8, Appellant similarly argues Wood "adds
nothing to Zhao, Robey and Keller" and does not teach or suggest the
4
Appeal2018-004514
Application 12/998,643
disputed limitations of claim 1. App. Br. 10-11. As discussed above, the
Examiner relies on Keller, not Kurata or Wood to teach or suggest the
disputed limitations. Accordingly, for the same reasons, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 5, 6, 8-10, and
15.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-
15.
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
5