RAMASUBRAMONIAN, Adarsh Krishnan et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 27, 201914513121 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2019) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation