Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 2, 2017

13194656 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2017)

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.
13/194,656 07/29/2011 YING CHEN 1010-688US01/102769 1350
15150 7590 10/04/2017
Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A.
1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
EXAMINER
PICON-FELICIANO, ANA J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2017 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):
pairdocketing @ ssiplaw.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YING CHEN, HONGQIANG WANG, and
MARTA KARCZE WICZ1
Appeal 2016-004844
Application 13/194,656
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1 through 42. We have jurisdiction
over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method of decoding video data
comprising base layer data having a first resolution and enhancement layer
data also having the first resolution. The base layer data comprises a reduced
Appeal 2016-004844
Application 13/194,656
resolution version of a left view relative to the first resolution and a reduced
resolution version of a right view relative to the first resolution. See
Abstract of Appellants’ Invention.
Claims 1 and 29 are illustrative of the invention and reproduced
below:
1. A method of decoding video data comprising base layer
data and enhancement layer data, the method comprising:
decoding base layer data having a first resolution,
wherein each picture of the base layer data comprises a reduced
resolution version of a left view relative to the first resolution
and a reduced resolution version of a right view relative to the
first resolution;
decoding enhancement layer data having the first
resolution and comprising enhancement data for exactly one of
the left view and the right view, and wherein decoding the
enhancement layer data comprises decoding the enhancement
layer data relative to at least a portion of the base layer data;
and
combining the decoded enhancement layer data with the one
of the left view or the right view of the decoded base layer data
to which the decoded enhancement layer corresponds.
29. An apparatus for encoding video data comprising a left
view of a scene and a right view of the scene, wherein the left
view has a first resolution and the right view has the first
resolution, the apparatus comprising a video encoder configured
to encode base layer data comprising pictures having a reduced
resolution version of the left view relative to the first resolution
and a reduced resolution version of the right view relative to
the first resolution, encode enhancement layer data comprising
enhancement data for exactly one of the left view and the right
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Qualcomm Inc. App.
Br. 3.
2
Appeal 2016-004844
Application 13/194,656
view, wherein the enhancement data has the first resolution, and
output the base layer data and the enhancement layer data.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 3, 6, 8 through 10, 13, 15
through 22, 27, 29 through 31, 36, and 38 through 42 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Kurutepe et al. (“Client Driven Selective
Streaming of Multiview Video for Interactive 3DTV” November 1, 2007
IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems For Video Technology Vol. 17,
No. 11. Answer 2—23.2
The Examiner has rejected claims 4, 7, 11, 14, 23, 24, 28, 32, 33, and
37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) unpatentable over Kurutepe and Liu et al.
(“Recent Advances in Video Compression: What’s Next?” IEEE Xplore, 9th
International Symposium, 2007). Answer 24—32.
The Examiner has rejected claims 5, 12, 26, and 35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) unpatentable over Kurutepe, Liu, and Lee et al. (US 2009/0187960
Al; published July 23, 2009). Answer 32—38.
The Examiner has rejected claims 25 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
unpatentable over Kurutepe and Lee. Answer 38-43.
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Specification, dated July 29 2011,
Appeal Brief, filed November 10, 2014; Reply Br., filed June 9, 2015; Final
Action mailed April 4, 2014, and the Examiner’s Answer, mailed on April 9,
2015.
3
Appeal 2016-004844
Application 13/194,656
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’
arguments. Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3, 6, 8 through 10, 13, 15 through
22, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 23 through
26, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. However, Appellants’ arguments have
not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 29 through
31, 36, and 38 through 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and of claims 32 through
35 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
ISSUES
Appellants argue on pages 11 through 18 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection is in error. These arguments present us
with the following issues:
a) Did the Examiner err in finding Kurutepe teaches decoding a base
layer wherein each picture of the base layer comprises a reduced
resolution version of a left view relative to the first resolution and a
reduced resolution version of a right view relative to the first view
as recited in representative claim l?3
b) Did the Examiner err in finding Kurutepe teaches encoding a base
layer having a first resolution and encoding an enhancement layer
having the first resolution as set forth in claim 20?
3 With respect to the first two issues Appellants have grouped claims 1, 3, 6,
8, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18,20, 22, 27,29,31,36,38, 39, and 41.
4
Appeal 2016-004844
Application 13/194,656
c) Did the Examiner err in finding Kurutepe teaches the first and
second enhancement layers have the same resolution as the base
layer as recited in representative claim 2?4
DECISION
First issue/ New Rejection
Appellants argue that claim 1 recites the base layer where each picture
of the base layer comprises a reduced resolution version of a left view and a
right view. App. Br. 11. Appellants argue that Kurutepe teaches a base
layer that includes pictures of separate views and that each picture has only
that view (asserting that none of the pictures include data for more than one
view). App. Br. 11—14.
The Examiner provides a detailed response finding that Kurutepe
teaches a base layer with multiple views, each at a lower resolution. Answer
44-45. We concur with the Examiner’s explanation of Kurutepe, however
Appellants argue the Examiner has not addressed the limitation of multiple
views in a picture as claimed. Reply Br. 3.
To respond to Appellants’ arguments directed to the first issue, we
must construe the claim term “picture.” We construe the term “picture” in
light of Appellants’ Specification which states:
Each of the packed frames of the base layer may correspond to
a single frame of video data having data for two pictures
corresponding to different views of a scene (e.g., a “right eye
view” and a “left eye view”). In particular, the techniques of
this disclosure may include encoding a base layer having a
4 With respect to the third issue Appellants grouped claims 2, 8, 17, 19, 21,
30, 40, and 42 together.
5
Appeal 2016-004844
Application 13/194,656
reduced resolution picture of a left eye view of a scene and a
reduced resolution picture of a right eye view of the scene that
are packed into one frame and encoded.
Specification para. 26. Further, Appellants’ Specification states:
This disclosure generally refers to a picture as a sample of a
view. This disclosure generally refers to a frame as comprising
one or more pictures, which is to be coded as at least a portion
of an access unit representing a specific time instance.
Accordingly, a frame may correspond to a sample of a view
(that is, a single picture) or, in the case of packed frames,
include samples from multiple views (that is, two or more
pictures).
Specification para. 28. Thus, in light of Appellants’ Specification the term
“picture” refers to a sample of a view (one picture is one view). Thus, when
construing the claims in light of the Specification, we conclude that claim 1
is ambiguous as the claim recites a picture with plural views and the proper
construction of the term “picture” is that it is a sample of one view.
Accordingly, we now enter a new rejection of independent claim 1, under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Independent claims 8, 16, 18, and 20 all
include similar limitations directed to a picture with two views. Thus, we
similarly reject claims 2 through 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
As discussed above, Appellants’ arguments directed to the first issue
require us to construe the term “picture” and as the claim is ambiguous, we
are unable to determine the scope of the claim. Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 8, 16, 18, and 20, and the
rejections of the claims which depend upon them, as we are unable to
ascertain the scope of the claims. Our reviewing court has said that it is
wrong to rely upon speculative assumptions as to the meaning of claims
6
Appeal 2016-004844
Application 13/194,656
when considering a prior art rejection. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,
862 (CCPA1962).
We note that Appellants’ arguments directed to the first issue do not
apply to independent claims 29, 39, and 41 as they are not commensurate
with Appellants’ arguments, (i.e. the claims do not recite one picture
containing two views). Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments directed to the
first issue have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claims 29, 31, 36, 38, 39, and 41.
Second Issue
As we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims
1, 8, 16, 18, and 20, we address Appellants’ arguments directed to the
second issue only with respect to independent claims 29, 39, and 41.
Appellants’ arguments with respect to the second issue assert Kurutepe does
not teach encoding a base layer having a first resolution and encoding an
enhancement layer having the first resolution as recited in claim 20. App.
Br. 17—18. This argument is not commensurate in scope with independent
claims 29, 39, and 41. For example, claim 29 recites the base layer
including pictures having a reduced resolution compared to the first
resolution and the enhancement layer having the first resolution, thus claim
29 recites the pictures in the base layer being at a reduced resolution as
compared to the resolution of the enhancement data. Claims 39 and 41
recite similar limitations. Thus, as Appellants’ arguments directed to the
second issue are not commensurate in scope with independent claims 29, 39,
and 41, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of these claims.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 29,
31,36, 38,39, and41.
7
Appeal 2016-004844
Application 13/194,656
Third issue
As we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims
1, 8, 16, 18, and 20, we similarly do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 2, 8, 17, 19, and 21. We address Appellants’ arguments
directed to the third issue only with respect to dependent claims 30, 40, and
42. Appellants’ arguments directed to the third issue assert Kurutepe does
not teach the first and second enhancement layers have the same resolution
as the base layer as recited in representative claim 2. This argument is not
commensurate in scope with dependent claims 30, 40, and 42. For example,
claim 30 is dependent upon claim 29. As discussed above, claim 29 recites
the pictures in the base layer being at a reduced resolution as compared to
the first enhancement layer data’s resolution. Claim 30 identifies that the
second enhancement layer data is at a first resolution, the same as the first
enhancement layer but not the same as the base layer. Thus, as Appellants’
arguments directed to the third issue are not commensurate in scope with
dependent claims 30, 40, and 42, we are not persuaded of error in the
rejection of these claims and, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these
claims.
Obviousness Rejections
Appellants argue these rejections are in error for the reasons discussed
with respect to the independent claims. Thus, we are not presented with any
issues with respect to these rejections. We reverse the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 23 through 26, and 28 as
we find these claims indefinite and reject them under 35U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, and we are unable to determine the scope of the claims, as
discussed above. We sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 32 through
8
Appeal 2016-004844
Application 13/194,656
35 and 37 for the reasons discussed above with respect to the anticipation
rejection.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 3, 6, 8
through 10, 13,15 through 22, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and to reject
claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 23 through 26, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 29 through 31,36, and
38 through 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and to reject claims 32 through 35 and
37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
We enter a new rejection of claims 1 through 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§112, second paragraph.
This Decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). This section provides that “[a] new ground of
rejection . . . shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellants, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both,
and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the
prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
9
Appeal 2016-004844
Application 13/194,656
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . .
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
37 C.F.R, 41.50(b)
10