Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 21, 20212020002793 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/264,366 09/13/2016 Takeshi TSUKUBA HW726521 1435 77399 7590 10/21/2021 Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd (for Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd) Two Prudential Plaza Suite 4900 180 North Stetson Avenue Chicago, IL 60601 EXAMINER HODGES, SUSAN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2425 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/21/2021 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): Chgpatent@leydig.com aipatent@huawei.com hwpatent@leydig.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TAKESHI TSUKUBA, TOMOHIRO IKAI, and TOMOYUKI YAMAMOTO Appeal 2020-002793 Application 15/264,366 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BETH Z. SHAW, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 3–13, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claim 2 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-002793 Application 15/264,366 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an image decoding apparatus. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An image decoding apparatus for decoding hierarchical image coded data including one or more layers, the apparatus comprising: a non-Video Coding Layer (VCL) decoder configured (a) to decode layer set information describing a hierarchical layer configuration of a layer set and (b) to decode a layer set identifier for identifying the layer set and an output layer flag for designating whether a layer included in the layer set is an output layer, and to derive output layer set information describing an output layer set that includes at least one output layer, wherein the output layer flag indicates that the output layer is a target layer when the flag has a value of one, and the output layer is not regarded as the target layer when the flag has a value of zero and a total sum of values of output layer flags of layers included in the output layer set is at least one; and a picture decoder configured to decode a picture of the output layer included in the output layer set based on the output layer set information. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Chen et al. (“Chen”) US 2014/0119437 A1 May 1, 2014 Suzuki et al. (“Suzuki”) US 2015/0281713 A1 Oct. 1, 2015 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–8, and 10–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen. Appeal 2020-002793 Application 15/264,366 3 Claims 5, 9, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatenablte over Chen and Suzuki. OPINION The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, 6–8, and 10–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Chen. Final Act. 4. We agree with Appellant that the cited portions of Chen do not disclose all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim. [U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Thus, it is not enough that the prior art reference discloses part of the claimed invention, which an ordinary artisan might supplement to make the whole, or that it includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention. Id. We agree with Appellant that Chen does not disclose “the output layer is not regarded as the target layer when the flag has a value of zero and a total sum of values of output layer flags of layers included in the output layer set is at least one.” See Appeal Br. 6. Rather, the cited portions of Chen disclose that an output layer flag “equal to 0 may indicate the layer with layer_id equal to j is not the target for output.” Chen ¶ 82. The cited portions of Chen do not expressly or inherently disclose “and a total sum of values of output layer flags of layers included in the output layer set is at Appeal 2020-002793 Application 15/264,366 4 least one,” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner does not identify, on this record, where Chen discloses a total sum of values of output layer flags, let alone a total sum of values of layers included in the output layer set being at least one when the output layer flag has a value of zero. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and for the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 23, 4, 6–8, and 10– 12. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 5, 9, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Suzuki, because the Examiner has not shown that Suzuki cures Chen’s deficiencies, as discussed above regarding the anticipation rejection of claim 1. CONCLUSION We reverse the rejections. More specifically, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6–8, and 10–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Chen. We reverse the rejection of claims 5, 9, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Suzuki. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 4, 6–8, 10–12 102 Chen 1, 3, 4, 6–8, 10–12 5, 9, 13 103 Chen, Suzuki 5, 9, 13 Overall Outcome 1, 3–13 Appeal 2020-002793 Application 15/264,366 5 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation