2020006302 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2021)

Intel Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 21, 2021

2020006302 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2021)

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. 15/114,478 07/27/2016 MIN ZHI SUN ITL.3426US (P85209US) 6687 47795 7590 12/21/2021 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. PO Box 41790 HOUSTON, TX 77241 EXAMINER RETALLICK, KAITLIN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2482 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/21/2021 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): Inteldocs_docketing@cpaglobal.com tphpto@tphm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MIN ZHI SUN and ZHAN LOU ____________________ Appeal 2020 -006302 Application 15/114,4781 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before MARC S. HOFF, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1–26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appellants’ invention is a multi-threaded video frame decoder. Decoding of a frame can be divided into several stages that run in parallel. If one or more stages of big frame decoding can be done much earlier than normal decoding order, decode time spent on the big frame may be greatly reduced. In addition, depending on how big the big frame is, the decoder 1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is Intel Corporation. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-006302 Application 15/114,478 2 control can control how early to start decoding, so that frame drops caused by big frames can be reduced or eliminated. Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A method comprising: determining whether a dependency exists in which decoding one frame is dependent on decoding another frame; in response to a determination that the dependency exists: removing said dependency so that decoding the one frame is not dependent on decoding the another frame; comparing a size of the one frame to a reference frame size; and determining a number of frames to early decode based on a comparison of the size of the one frame to the reference frame size. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is: Name Reference Date Han et al. US 2011/0096829 A1 Apr. 28, 2011 Hugosson et al. US 2011/0206133 A1 Aug. 25, 2011 Zhou US 2013/0272415 A1 Oct. 17, 2013 Bao et al. US 2014/0082146 A1 Mar. 20. 2014 Kilgariff US 2015/0206511 A1 July 23, 2015 Jeon et al. US 2016/0171641 A1 June 16, 2016 Lee et al. US 2017/0034538 A1 Feb. 2, 2017 Wu et al. US 2017/0064313 A1 Mar. 2, 2017 Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17, 21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hugosson, Bao, and Zhou. Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hugosson, Bao, Zhou, and Lee. Claims 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hugosson, Bao, Zhou, and Wu. Appeal 2020-006302 Application 15/114,478 3 Claims 6, 14, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hugosson, Bao, Zhou, Wu, and Han. Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hugosson, Bao, Zhou, and Kilgariff. Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hugosson, Bao, Zhou, Lee, and Jeon. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed April 10, 2020), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed September 8, 2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 6, 2020) for their respective details. ISSUE Does the combination of Hugosson, Bao, and Zhou teach or suggest determining a number of frames to early decode based on a comparison of the size of the one frame to the reference frame size? ANALYSIS Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17, 21, and 23 Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “determining a number of frames to early decode based on a comparison of the size of the one frame to the reference frame size.” Independent claims 9 and 17 recite analogous limitations. The Examiner finds that Hugosson teaches early decoding of frames in a situation where a first parsing unit is allocated a large frame. Final Act. 4-5, citing Hugosson ¶ 21 and Fig. 4B. The Examiner next finds that Bao teaches “early” decoding of frames in the event that one frame is larger than other frames. Final Act. 6, citing Bao ¶ 84 and Fig. 5. The Examiner then finds that Zhou decodes prediction units (PUs) of different sizes and Appeal 2020-006302 Application 15/114,478 4 determines frames to decode based on a comparison of the size of one frame to the reference frame. Final Act. 6, citing Zhou ¶ 64 and Fig. 5. Appellant argues, responding to each of these cited sections, that none of Hugosson, Bao, or Zhou teaches or suggests determining the number of frames to early decode, particularly not based on any comparison of the size of a frame to a reference frame size. Appeal Br. 9–10. The Examiner, in the Answer, restates the findings from the Final Action that: (1) Hugosson teaches parallel decoding of frames such that a next smaller frame can be decoded while a larger frame continues to be decoded; (2) Bao teaches decoding frames of different frame sizes; and (3) Zhou teaches decoding PUs of different sizes. Ans. 31–35. The Examiner never cites to a teaching or suggestion in any of Hugosson, Bao, or Zhou indicating the determination of the number of frames to early decode, nor indicating that such a numerical determination is based on a comparison of the size of a frame to a reference frame size. We find, as a result, that the Examiner’s combination of Hugosson, Bao, and Zhou fails to teach or suggest all the limitations of independent claims 1, 9, and 17. As a result, we do not sustain the 103 rejection of claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17, 21, and 23. Claims 2–4, 6, 8, 10–12, 14, 16, 18-20, 22, and 24–26 The Examiner does not find that Lee, Wu, Han, Kilgariff, or Jeon supply a teaching of the limitation we determine to be missing from the combination of Hugosson, Bao, and Zhou, supra. Therefore, for the same reason expressed with respect to the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 supra, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of: Appeal 2020-006302 Application 15/114,478 5 claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 18, and 19 over Hugosson, Bao, Zhou, and Lee; claims 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 over Hugosson, Bao, Zhou, and Wu; claims 6, 14, and 22 over Hugosson, Bao, Zhou, Wu, and Han; claim 25 over Hugosson, Bao, Zhou, and Kilgariff; and claim 26 over Hugosson, Bao, Zhou, Lee, and Jeon. CONCLUSION The combination of Hugosson, Bao, and Zhou does not teach or suggest determining a number of frames to early decode based on a comparison of the size of the one frame to the reference frame size. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17, 21, 23 103 Hugosson, Bao, Zhou 1, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17, 21, 23 2, 3, 10, 11, 18, 19 103 Hugosson, Bao, Zhou, Lee 2, 3, 10, 11, 18, 19 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24 103 Hugosson, Bao, Zhou, Wu 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24 6, 14, 22 103 Hugosson, Bao, Zhou, Wu, Han 6, 14, 22 25 103 Hugosson, Bao, Zhou, Kilgariff 25 26 103 Hugosson, Bao, Zhou, Lee, Jeon 26 Overall Outcome 1–26 Appeal 2020-006302 Application 15/114,478 6 ORDER The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-26 is reversed. REVERSED