Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 6, 2020

14732393 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 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.
14/732,393 06/05/2015 Hang Yuan 082438.032650 1232
139020 7590 03/06/2020
BakerHostetler / Apple Inc.
Washington Square, Suite 1100,
1050 Connecticut Ave, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20036-5304
EXAMINER
MAHMUD, FARHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/06/2020 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):
eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte HANG YUAN, CHRIS Y. CHUNG, JAE HOON KIM,
YEPING SU, JIEFU ZHAI, XIAOSONG ZHOU, and HSI-JUNG WU
________________

Appeal 2018-007934
Application 14/732,393
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, 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 1–24. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was requested, but waived. Waiver of
Hearing (Jan. 16, 2020).
We REVERSE.

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 Apple Inc.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-007934
Application 14/732,393

2

Summary of the disclosure
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to conversion of a still
image to a video sequence coded by motion compensation prediction
techniques where metadata is generated “that identifies allocations of
content from the still image to the frames of the video sequence.” Abstract.
Appellant’s claimed subject matter also relates to conversion of a decoded
video sequence back to the still image. Id.
Illustrative claims (key limitations emphasized)
1. A coding method, comprising:
converting a single still image to be coded to a video sequence;
coding the video sequence by motion compensated prediction
that includes temporal prediction references between frames of
the video sequence;
generating metadata identifying allocations of content from the
still image to the frames of the video sequence; and
transmitting coded data of the video sequence and the metadata
to a channel.
17. A decoding method, comprising:
decoding a coded video sequence by motion compensated
prediction that includes temporal prediction references between
frames of the video sequence, and
responsive to metadata, received in a channel with the coded
video sequence, converting the decoded video sequence to a
single still image.
The Examiner’s rejection and cited reference
The Examiner rejects claims 1–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Yi et al. (US 2012/0307904 A1; published Dec. 6, 2012)
(“Yi”). Final Act. 3–11.
Appeal 2018-007934
Application 14/732,393

3

ISSUES
Whether the Examiner’s findings show that Yi discloses the claim 1
recitations of: (1) “converting a single still image to be coded to a video
sequence” and (2) “generating metadata identifying allocations of content
from the still image to the frames of the video sequence.”
Whether the Examiner’s findings show that Yi discloses “responsive
to metadata, received in a channel with the coded video sequence,
converting the decoded video sequence to a single still image,” as recited in
claim 17.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–16
The claimed invention relates to “distributing content of a source
frame”—i.e., a single still image—“to frames of [a] phantom video
sequence.” Spec. ¶ 47. For example, individual pixels of the single still
image can be distributed among frames “according to a predetermined
distribution pattern.” Id.; see also id. 5(a). The single still image can be
downsampled using filters of different strengths to generate the frames. Id.
¶ 48, Fig. 5(b). Or the single still image can be parsed into multiple tiles that
are converted to frames that each correspond to one of the tiles. Id. ¶ 51,
Fig. 5(c).
Regardless how the single still image is converted to multiple frames
for coding to a video sequence, metadata is “generated that identifies
allocations of content from the still image to the frames of the video
sequence.” Id. ¶ 14; see also id. ¶ 46, Fig. 4. This enables a post-processor to
“reassemble content for the still image from the frames of the phantom video
Appeal 2018-007934
Application 14/732,393

4

sequence.” Id. ¶ 30. That is, the single still image can be recovered from the
phantom video sequence, albeit with potential errors resulting from the type
of video sequence coding and decoding used. See id. ¶ 34.
In rejecting the coding method of claim 1 as anticipated, the Examiner
finds that Yi’s encoding of the frames of input video (i.e., a series of still
images) to coded video data corresponds to “converting a single still image
to be coded to a video sequence,” as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 4
(citing Yi Fig. 1, ¶¶ 6–7, 12, 21, 31), 7. That is, the Examiner finds that “any
given video sequence is composed [of] a plurality of single video frames
which are separated and encoded,” where the encoding process is considered
a conversion. Ans. 3.
The Examiner further finds that Yi’s limiting of a coded area to a
region of a frame, with the limit communicated to the decoder through
metadata, corresponds to “generating metadata identifying allocations of
content from the still image to the frames of the video sequence,” as recited
in claim 1. See Final Act. 4 (citing Yi ¶¶ 37, 51), 7; see also Ans. 4.
Appellant argues that “[t]he mere fact that video sequences are
composed of a plurality of single video frames does not mean that the
claimed conversion takes place” to convert “one source image – ‘a single
still image’ – into a ‘video sequence.’” Reply Br. 3; see also Appeal Br. 7
(“[t]here is no conversion of a single image to a video sequence that includes
multiple frames”). “Ordinarily, frames for motion picture video are
generated simply by capturing image information at different times, for
example, by a camera.” Reply Br. 3.
Appellant also contends the Examiner erred because the metadata in
Yi does not allow “a decoder to reassemble the video sequence into a single
Appeal 2018-007934
Application 14/732,393

5

image, once [the video sequence] is decoded.” Id. Rather, Appellant argues,
“Yi merely states that a coder distinguishes a used area of a frame . . . from
an unused area . . . of the frame.” Appeal Br. 7 (citing Yi Figs. 2(a)–(b)).
Appellant further argues that Yi’s encoding of the area of a frame that is
used for coding merely describes coordinates of locations in a single frame
of a video sequence rather than describing “which elements of video content
from a first image are allocated to frames of a video sequence.” Id. at 8.
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive. Yi’s coding of a series of
source video frames encodes a series of still images into a video sequence
rather than a single still image into a video sequence. See Yi ¶ 31. Moreover,
the designation of a used portion of a frame merely identifies what portion of
the frame will be visible. Id. ¶ 38. It does not identify an allocation of
content from a still image. Yi’s designation does not even designate what
portion of the frame may be referenced by other inter-coded frames, as Yi
discloses that the unused (i.e., not visible) portion either may be referenced
by other frames—in which case a lower complexity coding mode may be
sufficient for the unused portion (id.)—or may not be referenced—in which
case the unused portion may be filled with “gray, white, or black pixels that
are cheap to code” (id. ¶ 39).
For these reasons, the Examiner’s findings do not show that Yi
discloses either “converting a single still image to be coded to a video
sequence” or “generating metadata identifying allocations of content from
the still image to the frames of the video sequence,” as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
rejection of claim 1, or claims 2–16, which contain similar recitations.
Appeal 2018-007934
Application 14/732,393

6

Claims 17–24
As discussed above, Appellant’s disclosed coding method converts a
single image to a phantom video sequence and generates metadata that
enables the single still image to be recovered from the phantom video
sequence. See Spec. ¶ 34. Claim 17 recites a process of decoding a video
sequence and “responsive to metadata, received in a channel with the coded
video sequence, converting the decoded video sequence to a single still
image.” Thus, claim 17 recites the process of recovering the single still
image from the phantom video sequence using metadata.
In rejecting claim 17 as anticipated, the Examiner relies on Yi’s post-
processing of “recovered video prior to output . . . [to] improve the quality of
the video displayed” as corresponding to the claimed conversion of a
decoded video sequence to a single still image, responsive to metadata. Final
Act. 10 (citing Yi Fig. 1, ¶¶ 22, 26).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “Yi does not disclose
any process in which such a conversion is performed in response to metadata
received from a channel. In Yi’s system, the metadata merely identifies a
corner location where a boundary between the used area 221 and unused
area 222 occurs.” Appeal Br. 10.
Appellant’s arguments accord with Yi, which discloses that the used
area coordinates merely disclose what area of a frame will be displayed. See,
e.g., Yi ¶ 38. Moreover, the Examiner does not show that the signal
conditioning operations of Yi’s post-processor—e.g., “filtering, de-
interlacing, scaling or other processing operations . . . that may improve the
quality of the video displayed” (id. ¶ 26)—indicate that the signal
Appeal 2018-007934
Application 14/732,393

7

conditional operations are performed “responsive to metadata[] received in a
channel with the coded video sequence,” as recited in claim 17.
The Examiner also finds that “decoded video sequences may be split
into frames and reference frames may be stored individually from the video
sequence.” Ans. 5. In response, Appellant argues that “[s]toring a frame of a
video sequence does not teach converting a video sequence to a single
image.” Reply Br. 5.
We agree with Appellant that merely splitting a video sequence into
frames, and even storing an individual frame from the video sequence, does
not disclose “converting the decoded video sequence to a single still image”
in the manner recited. In particular, obtaining individual frames merely
represents “decoding a coded video sequence,” which is a separate step from
the claimed conversion of “the video sequence to a single image.”
Converting a video sequence to a single image recovers a single image
encoded in the sequence, not just a frame (i.e., not just an image that is
obtained in the process of decoding the video sequence). See, e.g., Spec.
¶ 34. Moreover, the Examiner does not identify any metadata in Yi that
triggers either the splitting of a video sequence into frames or the storing of
an individual frame. Thus, the Examiner’s findings do not show any such
splitting or storage is “responsive to metadata[] received in a channel with
the coded video sequence,” as recited in claim 17.
For these reasons, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s
findings fail to show that Yi discloses “responsive to metadata, received in a
channel with the coded video sequence, converting the decoded video
sequence to a single still image,” as recited in claim 17. Accordingly, we do
Appeal 2018-007934
Application 14/732,393

8

not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 17, or
claims 18–24, which contain similar recitations.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference Affirmed Reversed
1–24 102(a)(1) Yi 1–24
REVERSED