Yunfei Zheng et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 22, 202012736463 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2020) 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. 12/736,463 01/11/2011 Yunfei Zheng PU080048 6626 24498 7590 01/22/2020 Vincent E. Duffy THOMSON Licensing 19868 Collins Road CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 EXAMINER GEROLEO, FRANCIS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2485 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/22/2020 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): Patricia.Verlangieri@InterDigital.com mike.pugel@eurekovation.com vincent.duffy@technicolor.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YUNFEI ZHENG, OSCAR DIVORRA ESCODA, PENG YIN, and JOEL SOLE Appeal 2018-005913 Application 12/736,463 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN F. HORVATH, NABEEL U. KHAN and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, 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 1–6, 10–16, 20–26, 30–36, 40 and 41. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Thomson Licensing DTV. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2018-005913 Application 12/736,463 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant describes the invention as relating to “template matching prediction in video encoding and decoding.” Abstract. Specifically, the invention describes an “apparatus [that] includes an encoder (300) for encoding a target block in a picture by determining at least one predictor for the target block and respectively utilizing the at least one predictor as a template to search for at least one additional predictor for the target block.” Id. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus, comprising: an encoder for encoding a target block in a picture by determining a plurality of predictors for the target block and respectively utilizing the plurality of predictors as templates in a template matching prediction process to search for a plurality of additional predictors for the target block, the plurality of predictors being reference blocks in reference pictures and using the additional predictors in a multihypothesis motion compensation prediction process to predict the target block, wherein a template is obtained from one reference picture, and a template matching prediction search is performed in the same reference picture or other reference pictures that are not in a same list of pictures, and wherein motion vectors can be derived from a motion vector predictor, or can be explicitly sent in the bitstream. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Appeal 2018-005913 Application 12/736,463 3 Name Reference Date Tourapis US 2007/0009044 A1 Jan. 11, 2007 Boon2 WO 2007/125856 A1 Nov. 8, 2007 Tourapis2 US 2004/0001546 A1 Jan. 1, 2004 REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 11, 21, 31 and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. Final Act. 3–4. 2. Claims 1–6, 11–16, 21–26, 31–36, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tourapis and Boon. Final Act. 4– 10. 3. Claims 10, 20, 30, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tourapis, Boon and Tourapis2. OPINION Indefiniteness Rejection The Examiner determines that the phrase “can be” in claim 1 renders the claim indefinite because “it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.” Final Act. 3. In other words, the Examiner finds that “it is not clear whether the limitations ‘derived from a motion vector predictor’ or ‘explicitly sent in the bitstream’ are part of the claimed invention or not.” Ans. 9. For purposes of continuing the patentability analysis, the Examiner interprets these limitations as affirmatively part of the invention. See Final Act. 3 (interpreting the 2 The Examiner refers to US 2009/0116760 A1, May 7, 2009 as a translation of WO 2007/125856 A1. Citations to “Boon” herein refer to the translation. Appeal 2018-005913 Application 12/736,463 4 limitation containing the phrase “can be” to mean “wherein motion vectors are derived from a motion vector predictor, or are explicitly sent in the bitstream”) (emphases added). The Examiner makes clear, however, that this is only one possible interpretation and the claim may be interpreted in multiple ways. For example, the Examiner finds the phrase “can be” may be interpreted so that the limitations following it may or may not be “part of the claimed invention.” Ans. 9. The phrase “can be” may also be interpreted as “able to be” which would entail a different requirement than the other interpretations. Id. Finally, the Examiner notes that the ambiguity would allow for various combinations of the above interpretations. Id. Appellant argues the phrase “can be” is taken directly from the Specification and that the interpretation the Examiner adopted for purposes of the rejection is indeed correct. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant points out that the fact that the Examiner was able to interpret the claims indicates that the claims are not indefinite. Appeal Br. 9. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments. “A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.” Ex Parte McAward, 2017 Pat. App. LEXIS 8537 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential) (citing In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1310, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). During patent examination, if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, it is appropriate for the USPTO to reject the claim as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and require the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. See Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 U.S.P.Q.2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). Here, we agree that the term “can be” allows for interpretations that require the limitations that follow “can be” to be Appeal 2018-005913 Application 12/736,463 5 performed and interpretations that do not require those limitations to be performed. In other words, it is unclear whether the claim requires the motion vectors to be derived from a motion vector predictor or explicitly sent in the bitstream, or simply permits them to be so obtained while also permitting them to be obtained in other, unclaimed ways. Accordingly we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 11, 21, 31 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Obviousness Rejection The Examiner finds Tourapis teaches “an encoder for encoding a target block in a picture by determining a plurality of predictors for the target block, the plurality of predictors being reference blocks in reference pictures” as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 4 (citing Tourapis ¶ 22, Figs. 4, 7) (identifying encoder 700 for encoding block 401/410 of current B- picture using predictors BML0 from a list 0 reference picture and BML1 from a list 1 reference picture). The Examiner further finds Boon teaches encoding a target block using a predictor obtained from one reference picture as a template to search for additional predictors in the same or other reference pictures. Id. at 5–6 (citing Boon ¶¶ 154–156, 162–165, 168– 170, 198, Figs. 4, 6A) (explaining how block 406 in picture 403 is used as a predictor to encode block 402 in picture 401 and as a template to search for additional predictors 601–604 in picture 403 or other pictures). Appellant argues no combination of Tourapis or Boon teaches or suggests each and every feature of the pending independent claims because Tourapis discloses a hybrid inter intra bi-prediction scheme, while Boon describes a plurality of predictors. Neither of the references teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the Appeal 2018-005913 Application 12/736,463 6 plurality of predictors being reference blocks in reference pictures and using the additional predictors in a multihypothesis motion compensation prediction process to predict the target block, wherein a template is obtained from one reference picture, and a template matching prediction search is performed in the same reference picture or other reference pictures that are not in a same list of pictures, for example. Appeal Br. 13. In particular, regarding the Examiner’s reliance on Boon for teaching a template matching process, Appellant argues Nothing in Boon teaches or suggests that the different frame is in a list that is different than a first list of pictures containing the initial reference frame. Boon does not restrict the search of the first matching template to a frame in a particular list that is then used for a subsequent search of additional predictors, or a subsequent search in another reference frame that is not in the same list as the first frame used to find the initial predictors. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant further argues “[n]either Boon nor Tourapis makes any suggestion of using the plurality of predictors as templates to search for a plurality of additional predictors for the target block let alone putting limitations on where to search for the plurality of additional predictors, as in the pending claims.” Appeal Br. 15. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We note that claim 1 recites that “a template matching prediction search is performed in the same reference picture or other reference pictures that are not in a same list of pictures.” Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). By using the disjunctive, the claim allows for the template matching search to be performed either “in the same reference picture” or in “other reference pictures that are not in the same list of pictures.” Appellant’s arguments that Appeal 2018-005913 Application 12/736,463 7 claim 1 requires the template search to be performed in a reference frame that is not in the same list as the reference frame from which the template was obtained, or that Boon does not restrict the search for a first predictor (template) to a frame in a first list and additional predictors (matching templates) to frames in another list, is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. As discussed above, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Boon discloses an inter-frame prediction method that uses current predictor 406 as a template for performing template matching to find a plurality of matching texture signals, which the Examiner interprets as the claimed “additional predictors.” Answer 11–12 (citing Boon, Figs. 6A, 6B, ¶¶ 154–156). The Examiner finds Boon teaches utilizing predictor 406 to find the additional predictors in the same reference image, and also in different reference images. Answer 12 (citing Boon ¶¶ 163, 164, 168, 198). We determine the Examiner’s findings sufficiently demonstrate that Boon teaches “wherein a template is obtained from one reference picture, and a template matching prediction search is performed in the same reference picture or other reference pictures that are not in a same list of pictures.” Moreover, even if we were to assume that claim 1 requires the predictors used as templates and the additional predictors (matching templates) to be obtained from different reference pictures in different lists, we would still find Appellant’s arguments to be unpersuasive because they do not address the Examiner’s findings as a whole. It is well established that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, Appeal 2018-005913 Application 12/736,463 8 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellant focuses on Boon as not restricting the template matching search to obtaining a predictor from a first frame in a first list, and using that predictor as a template to search for additional predictors (matching templates) in a second frame that is not in the first list . Appeal Br. 13. The Examiner, however, relies on Tourapis for teaching obtaining predictors from reference frames in two different lists. Ans. 10. The Examiner finds that Tourapis discloses bi-predictive inter coding using two (temporal) predictions BML0 and BML1 that are used for the current macroblock 410 (mislabeled as 401 in Fig. 4). Thus, BML0 and BML1 are predictors for the current macroblock. As illustrated, BML0 is a reference block in a reference List 0 Reference and BML1 is another reference block in another reference List 1 Reference. Ans. 10 (citing Tourapis ¶ 22, Fig. 4). The Examiner explains that “Tourapis already discloses List 0 and List 1 references from which predictors BML0 and BML1” are obtained. Ans. 13. This teaching, combined with Boon’s teaching of using predictors to search for additional predictors either in the same reference frame or different reference frames, would teach one of ordinary skill in the art that Boon’s different reference frames could be in a list that is different from the list of pictures containing the reference frame from which the initial predictor was obtained. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2–6, 11–16, 21–26, 31–36, and 41, which were argued together with claim 1. See Appeal Br. 11–15. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of Appeal 2018-005913 Application 12/736,463 9 claims 10, 20, 30, and 40, for which Appellant relies on the same arguments addressed above. See Appeal Br. 15. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 11, 21, 31 and 41 112(b) Indefiniteness 1, 11, 21, 31 and 41 1–6, 11–16, 21–26, 31– 36, 41 103(a) Tourapis, Boon 1–6, 11–16, 21–26, 31– 36, 41 10, 20, 30, and 40 103(a) Tourapis, Boon and Tourapis2 10, 20, 30, and 40 Overall Outcome 1–6, 10–16, 20–26, 30– 36, 40 and 41 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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