Yunfei Zheng et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 22, 2020

12736463 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2020)

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