RAMASUBRAMONIAN, Adarsh Krishnan et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 27, 2019

14513121 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 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.
14/513,121 10/13/2014 Adarsh Krishnan RAMASUBRAMONIAN 1414-710US01/140221U1 7986
15150 7590 12/27/2019
Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A.
1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
EXAMINER
NOH, JAE NAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2019 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte ADARSH KRISHNAN RAMASUBRAMONIAN,
YE-KUI WANG, and YING CHEN
________________

Appeal 2019-000789
Application 14/513,121
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–19, and 21–28. Claims 4, 8,
and 20 are canceled. Appeal Br. 13–15. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as
QUALCOMM Incorporated. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-000789
Application 14/513,121

2

Summary of the disclosure
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to management of “video
information associated with a base layer (BL) and an enhancement layer
(EL), the BL having a BL picture in a first access unit, and the EL having an
EL picture in the first access unit.” Abstract. Based on the value of a flag
associated with a base layer picture, a processor either: “(1) remov[es] one
or more EL pictures in a decoded picture buffer (DPB) without outputting
the one or more EL pictures before the EL picture is coded, or (2) refrain[s]
from removing the one or more EL pictures in the DPB without outputting
the one or more EL pictures.” Id.
Representative claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. An apparatus configured to code video information, the
apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to store video data associated with a first
layer associated with a smallest layer identifier (ID) value
among all layer ID values of the video data and an enhancement
layer (EL), the first layer having a current picture in a first
access unit, and the EL having an EL picture in the first access
unit; and
a processor in communication with the memory, the processor
configured to:
determine, based on the current picture, that a cross-layer
random access skip (CL-RAS) picture is not to be output;
based on the determination that a CL-RAS picture is not
to be output, remove one or more EL pictures from a
decoded picture buffer (DPB);
determine, based on a value of a variable,
NoOutputOfPriorPicsFlag, that the one or more EL
pictures are not to be output; and
based on the determination that the value of the variable,
NoOutputOfPriorPicsFlag, indicates that the one or more
Appeal 2019-000789
Application 14/513,121

3

EL pictures are not to be output, not output the one or
more EL pictures.
The Examiner’s rejections and cited references
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–19, and 21–28 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Byeongdoo Choi et al., MV-HEVC/
SHVC HLS: Reference picture marking and picture removal, Doc. Nos.
JCTV-N0128, JCT3V-E0110, Joint Collaborative Teams on Video Coding
(14th meeting) and 3D Video Coding Extensions (5th meeting) of ITU-T SG
16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, Vienna, Austria (2013)
(“Choi”) and Hannuksela (US 2015/0078456 A1; published Mar. 19, 2015).
Final Act. 7–22.
ADOPTION OF EXAMINER’S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings as set
forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken, and
we concur with the Examiner’s conclusions. We have considered
Appellant’s arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We provide
the following explanation for emphasis.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Choi’s
removal of pictures from a decoded picture buffer when a flag indicates they
are not needed for output teaches or suggests “based on [a] determination . . .
remov[ing] one or more [enhancement layer] pictures from a decoded
picture buffer.” See Final Act. 8–9 (citing Choi 3); Ans. 20. The Examiner
relies on Hannuksela’s NoClrasOutputFlag value to teach or suggest the
determination being that “a [cross-layer random access skip] picture is not to
Appeal 2019-000789
Application 14/513,121

4

be output.” See Final Act. 10 (citing Hannuksela ¶ 447); Ans. 20. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an artisan of
ordinary skill to modify Choi to include and apply Hannuksela’s
NoClrasOutputFlag value by removing one or more enhancement layer
pictures from the decoded picture buffer because Hannuksela’s cross-layer
random access skip pictures are similar to Choi’s random access skipped
leading pictures, “and thus the benefit would similarly apply to the situation
involving [cross-layer random access skip] pictures for improving the
management of the buffers in the [decoded picture buffer].” Final Act. 10
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the Examiner
erroneously “imparts dependency in two distinct and independent references
by arguing that the alleged disclosure in Choi to remove [enhancement
layer] pictures from the [decoded picture buffer] would be dependent upon
Hannuksela’s disclosure that [cross-layer random access skip] pictures are
not to be output.” Appeal Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 2 (“the use of two
variables from Choi[,] NoRaslOutputFlag and NoOutputOfPriorPicsFlag
(even if combined with Hannuksela’s [NoClrasOutputFlag]) still fails to
satisfy the limitation of Claim 1”). In particular, Appellant argues that
“Hannuksela fails to describe that the NoClrasOutputFlag . . . has any
bearing on removing any pictures from the [decoded picture buffer].”
Appeal Br. 7–8; see also Reply Br. 2–3 (“replacing the NoRaslOutputFlag of
Choi with the NoClrasOutputFlag of Hannuksela . . . still fails to show that,
for every [cross-layer random access skip] picture not to be output, the
[enhancement layer] pictures are in fact removed from the [decoded picture
buffer]”).
Appeal 2019-000789
Application 14/513,121

5

Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because they improperly
characterize the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner does not rely on
Hannuksela’s NoClrasOutputFlag value in combination with the
NoOutputOfPriorPicsFlag value of Choi in a manner requiring that one
value is dependent on the other. Rather, the Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to modify Choi to handle a NoClrasOutputFlag
value in a manner similar to the NoOutputOfPriorPicsFlag value—i.e., by
removing pictures that are not to be output from the decoded picture
buffer—while also continuing to handle the NoOutputOfPriorPicsFlag
value. See Ans. 20–21.
The Examiner’s rejection is supported not only by Choi’s teaching
“that all pictures that are not to be output should be removed from the”
decoded picture buffer (Ans. 21; see also Choi 3), but by Hannuksela’s
teachings that: (1) “when NoClrasOutputFlag is equal to 1 . . . the [cross-
layer random access skip] pictures are not output” (Hannuksela ¶ 462);
(2) “[a] picture may be considered as a [cross-layer random access skip]
picture when . . . it resides in an enhancement layer” (id. ¶ 464); and (3) “[a]
decoded picture may be removed from the [decoded picture buffer] when it
. . . is not needed for output” (id. ¶ 211). That is, Hannuksela also teaches or
suggests that the NoClrasOutputFlag value, by indicating not to output
cross-layer random access skip pictures residing in an enhancement layer,
would lead to one or more enhancement layer pictures being removed from a
decoded picture buffer.
Appellant further argues “that incorporating Choi’s disclosure of
clearing the [decoded picture buffer] based on the NoOutputOfPriorPicsFlag
with the NoClrasOutputFlag of Hannuksela would cause Choi to
Appeal 2019-000789
Application 14/513,121

6

malfunction or operate improperly and change the principle of operation of
Choi.” Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 4 (“the NoOutputOfPriorPicsFlag of
Choi and the NoClrasOutputFlag of Hannuksela are established based on
different aspects and serve different purposes when applied, [thus] the
combination of flags would not ‘work[] in [a] cooperative manner’” (second
set of brackets in Reply Brief)).
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because, as Appellant
submits, “the NoOutputOfPriorPicsFlag of Choi and the NoClrasOutputFlag
of Hannuksela are established based on different aspects and serve different
purposes when applied.” Reply Br. 4. That is, Choi and Hannuksela teach or
suggest that the two flags can be interpreted and applied independently.
Although the claimed invention recites both “remov[ing] one or more
[enhancement layer] pictures from a decoded picture buffer” (based on a
first determination) and “not output[ting] the one or more [enhancement
layer] pictures” (based on a second determination), we are unable to
ascertain anything that precludes configuring a processor: (1) to use the
NoClrasOutputFlag value of Hannuksela to remove an enhancement layer
picture and (2) to use the NoOutputOfPriorPicsFlag value of Choi being
used to not output the picture. That is, we are unable to ascertain any
evidence showing that Choi would malfunction or otherwise operate
improperly based on such a configuration.
Appellant also argues it would not have been obvious to modify Choi
based on the teachings and suggestions of Hannuksela because “Choi
already describes that ‘all picture storage buffers in the [decoded picture
buffer] except the pictures belonging to the same access unit are emptied,
when the value of NoOutputOfPriorPicsFlag is equal to 1.’” Appeal Br. 10
Appeal 2019-000789
Application 14/513,121

7

(citing Choi 1); see also Reply Br. 5. The Examiner correctly notes,
however, that “Choi does not specifically disclose[] use of the [cross-layer
random access skip] pictures.” Ans. 24. Moreover, Hannuksela does not
limit the NoClrasOutputFlag value to being applicable to pictures that do not
belong to the same access unit. Thus, the pictures affected by the
NoOutputOfPriorPicsFlag value of Choi and the NoClrasOutputFlag value
of Hannuksela may or may not overlap. Therefore, we find no error in the
Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to an artisan of
ordinary skill to modify Choi to also use and apply the NoClrasOutputFlag
value of Hannuksela in the claimed manner (i.e., to remove enhancement
layer pictures from a decoded picture buffer when a cross-layer random
access skip picture is not to be output). See Final Act. 10.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9–19, and 21–28, which Appellant does not
argue separately. Appeal Br. 11.
CONCLUSION
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–7,
9–19, 21–28
103 Choi,
Hannuksela
1–3, 5–7,
9–19, 21–28

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED