Purvin Bibhas. Pandit et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 12, 2019

12452054 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2019)

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.
12/452,054 12/14/2009 Purvin Bibhas Pandit 2007P00087WOUS 3972
147897 7590 12/12/2019
Tutunjian & Bitetto, P.C.
401 Broadhollow Road
Suite 402
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
JEBARI, MOHAMMED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/12/2019 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):
docketing@tb-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PURVIN BIBHAS PANDIT and PENG YIN1
____________________

Appeal 2018-005882
Application 12/452,054
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.

JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant(s)” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, the real party in interest is
THOMPSON LICENSING. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed December 14,
2009, the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed August 29, 2017, the
Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed January 25, 2018, and the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.”) mailed March 16, 2018.
Appeal 2018-005882
Application 12/452,054

2

BACKGROUND
Multi-view content may be generated by multiple cameras viewing
the same or similar scene. Spec. 1. Because there is a high degree of
correlation between views of the scene, view prediction can be exploited to
enhance coding of the multi-view content. Id. Coding of multi-view content
is defined in an extension to MPEG-4 Advanced Video Coding (AVC)
known as Multi-view Video Coding (MVC). Id. at 6.
In some circumstances, it may be desirable to decode only certain
views of multi-view content. Id. at 9. For multi-view video content encoded
using inter-view prediction, single loop decoding can be employed for this
purpose. Id. at 3. Single loop decoding infers certain elements from
partially reconstructed neighboring views without the need for their
complete reconstruction, thus saving memory and time. Id. at 9.
Illumination compensation offset is one element that can be inferred from
neighboring views. Id. at 6, 10.
Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis to identify argued claim
language, is representative of the claimed invention, and incorporates the
mentioned features:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
an encoder for encoding multi-view video content to
enable single loop decoding of the multi-view video content
when the multi-view video content is encoded using inter-view
prediction,
wherein the inter-view prediction infers an illumination
compensation offset of a neighboring reference view based on a
single binary flag indicating that the neighboring reference view
is not completely reconstructed during decoding;
wherein a high level syntax element is used to indicate on
a view basis whether the single loop decoding is enabled, by
Appeal 2018-005882
Application 12/452,054

3

identifying one of a plurality of views corresponding to the multi-
view video content.3

Appeal Br. 20 (Claims Appendix). Independent claims 7 and 13 are
method and non-transitory storage media claims similar to the
apparatus of claim 1. The remaining claims depend from one of these
three independent claims.

REJECTION
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Yang (US 2007/0177672 A1, published August 2,
2007), Koo (US 60/869,867, published February 25, 2010) and Wang
(US 2008/0095234 A1, published April 24, 2008). Final Act. 4–7.

ANALYSIS
A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying

3 We suggest the Examiner consider whether the claimed elements are
sufficiently interrelated to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second
paragraphs. For example, for what purpose is the illumination compensation
offset inferred? What element uses the illumination compensation offset, the
binary flag, and the high level syntax element? Why does identifying a view
indicate single loop decoding is enabled, and to what element is that view
identified and for what purpose?
Appeal 2018-005882
Application 12/452,054

4

factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) where present, objective
evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18
(1966).
Appellant argues independent claims 1, 7 and 13 together as one
group and presents no separate arguments for the dependent claims.
App. Br. 18. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the group
and address only this claim in our analysis. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
All claims stand or fall with claim 1.
Claim 1
A. Argument that Yang, Koo, and Wang Fail to Disclose the Claimed
Single Binary Flag Indicating that the Neighboring Reference View is
Not Completely Reconstructed During Decoding
Claim 1 recites a “single binary flag indicating that the neighboring
reference view is not completely reconstructed during decoding.” App. Br.
20 (Claims App’x). The Examiner relies on Koo to disclose this feature of
the claimed invention. Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 5. Specifically, the Examiner
finds that Koo’s ‘used_for_interview_pred_flag’ teaches the single binary
flag of claim 1. Koo 2. Appellant disagrees, arguing that the references
relied on in the Examiner’s rejection fail to disclose the claimed feature.
App. Br. 14.
Koo states as follows:
The present invention relates to a proposed technology to prepare
for a case that a single loop decoding process of [Scalable Video
Coding (“SVC”)] is applied to MVC. After
‘used_for_interview_pred_flag’ is defined in a NAL header, if a
current NAL is not used for inter-view prediction, decoding is
partially performed in the course of complexity reduction of a
Appeal 2018-005882
Application 12/452,054

5

decoder. For instance, intra MB is completely decoded, while a
residual signal of inter MB is decoded only.
Koo 2. Appellant argues “nowhere in Koo is any discussion regarding
interview prediction based on a binary flag indicating that the neighboring
reference view is not completely reconstructed during decoding.”
App. Br. 17. Instead, Appellant argues, “the above passage of Koo simply
states that if a current [Network Access Layer (“NAL”)] is not being used
for inter-view prediction after ‘used_for_interview_pred_flag’ is defined,
then decoding may be partially performed.” Id. According to Appellant,
“[t]his is not equivalent to a binary flag indicating that a neighboring
reference view is not completely reconstructed during decoding, and is only
discussed in Koo as an indication to use inter-view prediction.” Id.
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner’s rejection relies on Koo’s
teaching that “if [the] ‘used_for_interview_pred_flag’ is equal to 0 for the
current NAL unit, [the] current NAL can be partially decoded, which means
not completely reconstructed during decoding.” Final Act. 3; Ans. 9. But if
Koo’s flag is set to zero, then the current NAL unit is not used for inter-view
prediction. Koo 3. Claim 1, however, recites that inter-view prediction is
used to infer illumination compensation offset based on the binary flag.
Thus, the teaching of Koo that the Examiner relies on to disclose the claimed
limitation actually contradicts it.
The Examiner further finds that Koo teaches “[t]he current NAL unit
is part of the neighboring reference view because it can be used in inter-view
prediction . . . and also can have a view_level and view_id.” Final Act. 3
(citing Koo 2–3); Ans. 9. The Examiner has provided insufficient evidence
to establish that a current NAL unit used for inter-view prediction
necessarily makes it part of a neighboring reference view. Furthermore,
Appeal 2018-005882
Application 12/452,054

6

although Koo mentions the values of view_level and view_id are in some
cases inferred (Koo 2), the Examiner does not explain how these syntax
elements are relevant to disclosing any feature of claim 1. “[R]ejections on
obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with rational underpinning
to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418
(citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The Examiner further finds that “when the current NAL [unit] is
partially decoded, which means not completely reconstructed during
decoding, this also means that the view where the NAL unit belongs is not
completely reconstructed during decoding because its NAL unit is partially
decoded.” Id. Although it may be true that Koo’s partial decoding of a
NAL unit is equivalent to incomplete reconstruction of a view as claimed,
this does not negate the Examiner’s reliance on a teaching in Koo that states
that inter-view prediction is not to be used (flag set to zero), when claim 1
expressly requires that it is used. Thus, it is inconsequential to our decision
that partial decoding of a NAL unit may be equivalent to incomplete
reconstruction of a view as claimed.
Reviewing the evidence, we find that the Examiner has not shown that
Koo teaches or suggests that its ‘used_for_interview_pred_flag’ is a “single
binary flag indicating that the neighboring reference view is not completely
reconstructed during decoding” as recited in claim 1. Instead, as Appellant
argues, Koo’s flag merely indicates whether the current NAL unit is used for
inter-view prediction. App. Br. 17; Koo 3. As the Examiner’s rejection
relies solely on Koo, which fails to teach the claimed feature, we do not
sustain the rejection.
Appeal 2018-005882
Application 12/452,054

7

Our decision on the argument addressed above is dispositive of all
issues in this case, so we do not reach Appellant’s remaining argument.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12,
13, 15, 16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. References Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9,
10, 12, 13, 15,
16, 18
103 Yang, Koo, Wang
1, 3, 4, 6,
7, 9, 10,
12, 13, 15,
16, 18
Overall
Outcome

1, 3, 4, 6,
7, 9, 10,
12, 13, 15,
16, 18

REVERSED