Zhuangfei Wu et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 19, 2019

14238501 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 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.
14/238,501 02/12/2014 Zhuangfei Wu 1009-0864 / P35109 US2 3770
152435 7590 09/19/2019
Sage Patent Group/Zacco
PO BOX 30789
RALEIGH, NC 27622-0789
EXAMINER
NOH, JAE NAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2019 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):
outsourcing@zacco.com
zaccoinstructions@sagepat.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ZHUANGFEI WU and THOMAS RUSERT
___________

Appeal 2017-010331
Application 14/238,501
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ERIC B. CHEN, and NABEEL U. KHAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2017-010331
Application 14/238,501

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 39–75. (Claims App’x.) Claims 1–38 have been cancelled. (Id.)
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to motion vector prediction and
decoding for multi-view video content from multiple camera views.
(Abstract.)
Claim 39 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
39. A method of motion vector prediction for multi-view
video coding of video content from multiple camera views, said
method comprising:
determining a motion vector type for a motion vector, from
multiple predefined motion vector types, wherein said motion vector
is estimated for a current pixel block in a current frame of a current
camera view of said multiple camera views and said motion vector
identifies a reference pixel area in a reference frame, wherein said
motion vector type is determined based on at least one of i) said
current camera view and a camera view of said reference frame
among said multiple camera views, and ii) a point in time of said
current frame and a point in time of said reference frame;
identifying at least one candidate motion vector predictor of
said determined motion vector type; and
determining a motion vector predictor for said motion vector
from only among said at least one candidate motion vector predictor
of said determined motion vector type.

Claims 39–44, 48–54, 58–62, 66–71, and 75 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Lin (US 20140078254 A1,
published Mar. 20, 2014).
Appeal 2017-010331
Application 14/238,501

3
Claims 45–47, 55–57, 63–65, and 72–74 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin and Li (Doug Li et al.,
Enhanced Block Prediction in Stereoscopic Video Coding, 2011 IEEE 1–4
(2011)).

§ 102 Rejection—Lin
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 17; see also
Reply Br. 4) that Lin does not describe the limitations “determining a motion
vector type for a motion vector” and “identifying at least one candidate
motion vector predictor of said determined motion vector type,” as recited in
independent claim 39.
The Examiner found that the motion vector or motion vector predictor
(MV/MVP) of Lin, for a block of a current picture in three-dimensional
video coding, corresponds to the limitations “determining a motion vector
type for a motion vector” and “identifying at least one candidate motion
vector predictor of said determined motion vector type.” (Final Act. 9–10.)
In particular, the Examiner found that “[t]he selection from different types of
candidate motion vector predictors in Lin, such as temporal or spatial motion
vector predictors, is deemed to include ‘determining’ the type as being
temporal and spatial.” (Id. at 2.) We do not agree with the Examiner’s
findings.
Lin relates to “deriving MV/MVP (motion vector or motion vector
predictor) . . . associated Skip mode, Merge mode or Inter mode for a block
of a current picture in three-dimensional (3D) video coding.” (Abstract.)
Lin explains the following:
A method and apparatus for deriving MV/MVP (motion
vector or motion vector predictor) . . . associated Skip mode,
Appeal 2017-010331
Application 14/238,501

4
Merge mode or Inter mode for a block of a current picture in
three-dimensional video coding using spatial prediction,
temporal prediction and inter-view prediction are disclosed.
Embodiments according to the present invention select the
MV/MVP . . . from spatial candidates, temporal candidates and
inter-view candidates.
(¶ 31.)
Although the Examiner cited Lin for the general disclosure of
“deriving MV/MVP (motion vector or motion vector predictor) . . . using
spatial prediction, temporal prediction and inter-view prediction” and
“select[ing] the MV/MVP . . . from spatial candidates, temporal candidates
and inter-view candidates,” the Examiner has provided insufficient evidence
to support a finding that Lin discloses the limitations “determining a motion
vector type for a motion vector” and “identifying at least one candidate
motion vector predictor of said determined motion vector type.” In
particular, while Lin refers generally to the concepts of a “MV/MVP
(motion vector or motion vector predictor)” together and refers generally to
the selection of “spatial candidates, temporal candidates and inter-view
candidates” (¶ 31), Lin is silent with respect to the initial step of
“determining a motion vector type for a motion vector” before the step of
“identifying at least one candidate motion vector predictor of said
determined motion vector type” (emphases added), as recited in claim 39.
Thus, on this record, the Examiner has not shown that Lin discloses the
limitations “determining a motion vector type for a motion vector” and
“identifying at least one candidate motion vector predictor of said
determined motion vector type.”
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that:
Appeal 2017-010331
Application 14/238,501

5
Most particularly, while Lin identities a set of candidate
motion vector predictors for use in determining a motion vector
predictor, this is done without regard to a motion vector type of
the motion vector for a current pixel block. For this same
reason, then, Lin necessarily fails to disclose that the
determining of the motion vector predictor is from only among
candidate motion vector predictors of the determined type.
(App. Br. 17 (emphases omitted); see also Reply Br. 4.)
Therefore, we do not agree with the Examiner that Chung describes
the limitations “determining a motion vector type for a motion vector” and
“identifying at least one candidate motion vector predictor of said
determined motion vector type.”
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 39
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Claims 40–44 depends from independent
claim 39. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 40–44 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent
claim 39.
Independent claims 48, 49, 58, 67, and 68 recite limitations similar to
those discussed with respect to independent claim 34. We do not sustain the
rejection of claims 48, 49, 58, 67, and 68, as well as dependent claims 50–
54, 59–62, 66, 69–71, and 75, for the same reasons discussed with respect to
claim 39.

§ 103 Rejection—Lin and Li
Claims 45–47, 55–57, 63–65, and 72–74 depend from independent
claims 39, 49, 58, and 68. Li was cited by the Examiner for teaching the
additional features of claims 45–47, 55–57, 63–65, and 72–74. (Final
Appeal 2017-010331
Application 14/238,501

6
Act. 18–28.) However, the Examiner’s application of Li does not cure the
above noted deficiencies of Lin.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 39–75 under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 102 and 103 is reversed.

REVERSED