Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2018

14449034 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/449,034 07/31/2014
15150 7590 07/02/2018
Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A.
1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ying Chen
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1010-900US02/112856Cl 3167
EXAMINER
ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2018 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, MARTA KARCZEWICZ, and
YE-KUIWANG
Appeal2018-000980 1
Application 14/449,034
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-20, all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Qualcomm Incorporated is identified as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal2018-000980
Application 14/449,034
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction 2
The Application is directed to "techniques for coding video data ...
where a picture size for a group of pictures in the video sequence may be
coded based on an aligned coding unit size for the video sequence." Spec.
,r 6. Claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for
reference:
1. A method of encoding video data comprising:
determining a smallest coding unit size for a video
sequence, the video sequence comprising a plurality of pictures,
each of the plurality of pictures including a respective plurality
of largest coding units (LCU s) including a respective plurality of
coding units, each of the coding units corresponding to a
respective node of a respective quadtree data structure, and each
of the coding units including syntax elements defining prediction
data and residual data for a plurality of samples of the
corresponding coding unit, and the smallest coding unit size
being the smallest coding unit size of a plurality of different
coding unit sizes of the coding units used to encode the plurality
of pictures, the plurality of different coding unit sizes including
at least three coding unit sizes, the smallest coding unit size being
smaller than a size of the LCU s;
encoding the respective quadtree data structures,
comprising encoding split flags of the quadtree data structures
representing whether the coding units corresponding to the
quadtree data structures are partitioned into smaller coding units;
determining a multiple of the smallest coding unit size that
represents a picture size associated with the video sequence;
signaling the smallest coding unit size in sequence level
syntax information in a video bitstream for the video sequence;
encoding the coding units of the plurality of pictures, each
of the coding units having one of the plurality of different coding
2 An appeal was filed for Patent "Application No. 13/550,384 that may be
considered related to this appeal." App. Br. 3.
2
Appeal2018-000980
Application 14/449,034
unit sizes, such that a first coding unit of the coding units has a
first size of the plurality of different coding unit sizes and a
second coding unit of the coding units has a second, different size
of the plurality of different coding unit sizes, and encoding the
coding units comprising encoding, for each of the coding units,
the syntax elements defining the prediction data and the residual
data for the plurality of samples of the corresponding coding
units; and
signaling the multiple of the smallest coding unit size in
the sequence level syntax information in the video bitstream as
the picture size, the multiple multiplied by the smallest coding
unit size signaled in the sequence level syntax information
yielding the picture size.
References and Rejections
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 9.
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Lin (US 2006/0072669 Al; Apr. 6, 2006) and Huang (US
2012/0106652 Al; May 3, 2012). Final Act. 11.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments, considering only those arguments Appellants actually raised in
the Briefs. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("it has
long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged
error in the examiner's rejections"). We are not persuaded the Examiner's
rejections are in error.
3
Appeal2018-000980
Application 14/449,034
I. 35U.S.C.§101
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101. The
Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101 to include an implicit
exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not
patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework previously
set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S.
66, 79 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in
that analysis is to "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one
of those patent-ineligible concepts," e.g., to an abstract idea. Id. If the
claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the inquiry proceeds to the
second step, where the elements of the claims are considered "individually
and 'as an ordered combination,' to determine whether the additional
elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible
application." Id.
Noting that "the two stages involve overlapping scrutiny of the
content of the claims," the Federal Circuit has described
the first-stage inquiry as looking at the "focus" of the claims,
their "'character as a whole,"' and the second-stage inquiry
(where reached) as looking more precisely at what the claim
elements add-specifically, whether, in the Supreme Court's
terms, they identify an "'inventive concept"' in the application
of the ineligible matter to which (by assumption at stage two) the
claim is directed.
4
Appeal2018-000980
Application 14/449,034
Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (internal citations omitted).
Analyzing the claims under step one of the two-step framework laid
out in Alice, the Examiner determines the claims are "directed toward
formatting data by a basic mathematical manipulation, indicating picture
size data and coding unit size data with respect to the same number, an
abstract idea." Final Act. 9 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner determines
"[t]here is no limitation as to range or how the smallest coding unit size is
selected" to be "used as a multiple for encoding both the larger coding units
and the picture resolution." Ans. 3 (emphasis omitted). Proceeding with
step two of the Alice framework, the Examiner determines the claims do not
recite additional elements that provide "meaningful limitations beyond
generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological
environment, in this case the implementation of this mathematical operation
on a computer in the context of established video coding standards." Final
Act. 9.
Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection is in error, because
"Appellant[ s '] claims are not directed to selecting a smallest coding unit
size. Instead, claim 1, for example, is directed to determining what the
actual smallest coding unit size for a video sequence is." Reply Br. 7
( emphasis omitted). Appellants contend that the claims, thus, "improve[] the
technology of video coding," and "the claims include additional elements
that amount to significantly more than a judicial exception itself." App. Br.
10 (internal quotation marks omitted).
5
Appeal2018-000980
Application 14/449,034
Appellants do not separately argue the claims. See App. Br. 15. We
select claim 1 as representative of the group, and discuss each step of the
rejection with respect to the Alice framework, below. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
A. Alice Step One
We find the Examiner does not err in concluding the claims are
directed to a judicially-recognized abstract idea. Claim 1 recites steps of
determining, encoding, and signaling, as part of a "method of encoding
video data." We agree with the Examiner that the claims are "directed
toward formatting data by a basic mathematical manipulation, indicating
picture size data and coding unit size data with respect to the same number."
Final Act. 9; see also Reply Br. 7-8 ("Appellant[s'] claim 1 is directed to
signaling data indicating what the actual smallest coding unit size is, as well
as a picture size that is a multiple of the smallest coding unit size"). Such a
concept is abstract, as our reviewing court has held that encoding and
decoding image data is abstract. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
Ltd., 855 F.3d 1322, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("the abstract idea of encoding
and decoding image data"); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital
One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340-41 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (organizing,
displaying, and manipulating data encoded for human- and machine-
readability is directed to an abstract concept); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v.
Elecs.for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to an
abstract idea. See Ans. 4--5.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments that the claims contain
a technical improvement and are similar to the claims in Enfish. See App.
6
Appeal2018-000980
Application 14/449,034
Br. 10 (citing Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir.
2016)). In Enfzsh, "the plain focus of the claims is on an improvement to
[the] computer functionality itself." Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336. In contrast,
we do not find a claimed focus on an improvement to the computer
functionality here. Appellants point to the Specification, which states that
"[i]n order to increase coding efficiency of the video sequence, it may be
useful to determine the smallest coding unit size for the video sequence and
specify a picture size for the group of pictures." Spec. ,r 21; see also App.
Br. 10. Yet the Specification provides no explanation of why such benefit
would exist, other than the bare assertion; nor does the Specification explain
how such coding size would yield a benefit to the computer functionality
itself. Neither Appellants nor the Specification explain how the claimed
process is more efficient than existing and well-known coding techniques.
See Ans 6; Spec. ,r,r 3-5; Huang ,r,r 3, 31. Moreover, claim 1 does not recite
how to determine a smallest coding size or how to determine a multiple of
the smallest coding unit size that represents a picture size associated with the
video sequence, further underscoring that claim 1 is directed to a desired
result rather than a concrete technical solution. See, e.g., Affinity Labs of
Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, Appellants do not provide sufficient evidence or technical
reasoning to persuade us the Examiner errs in determining the claimed
invention does not include "improvements to another technology or
technical field" or "improvements to the structure of the computer itself."
Ans. 6; see also RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1327 (internal citations omitted)
("Unlike Enfzsh, claim 1 does not claim a software method that improves the
7
Appeal2018-000980
Application 14/449,034
functioning of a computer," rather "[i]t claims a 'process that qualifies as an
'abstract idea' for which computers are invoked merely as a tool"').
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to
an abstract concept. See Ans. 4--5.
B. Alice Step Two
We are not persuaded the claims recite significantly more than the
abstract concept. As explained above with respect to the first step of the
Alice analysis, there is insufficient evidence on the record before us to
persuasively show the claims improve an existing technological process.
Further, claim 1 is not a technology-based solution; rather the claim recites
an algorithm that may be performed by generic computing equipment. See
Spec. ,r,r 96-99 (providing the hardware, software, and combinations thereof
can be implemented in a wide variety of devices); RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at
1328 ("[C]laim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of encoding and decoding.
The addition of a mathematical equation that simply changes the data into
other forms of data cannot save it."); cf DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258
("not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible
for patent").
We agree with the Examiner that the limitations relied upon by
Appellants, such as the "specific way of coding ( encoding or decoding) data
representative of the picture size" are part of the abstract idea itself. App.
Br. 11; see Final Act. 4, 9; see also RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1326 ("the
abstract idea of encoding and decoding image data"). Moreover, the
Supreme Court has instructed that "limiting the use of an abstract idea to a
particular technological environment" cannot transform a patent-ineligible
abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358
8
Appeal2018-000980
Application 14/449,034
(internal citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Affinity Labs of
Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here,
Appellants do not persuasively show the claim recites an inventive concept
that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
Thus, Appellants do not persuade us claim 1 recites elements that
transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.
C. Preemption
Appellants also argue "the claims of the present Application do not
seek a monopoly over the alleged abstract idea of 'formatting picture size
data,'" as "[i]nstead, the pending claims recite a specific way of coding
( encoding or decoding) data representative of a picture size." App. Br. 11
( emphasis omitted).
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. As discussed above, we
conclude the claimed way of coding is part of the abstract idea itself. See
Ans. 3-6. Further, preemption is not the sole test for patent eligibility, and
any questions on preemption in the instant case have been resolved by the
above analysis. As our reviewing court has explained: "questions on
preemption are inherent in and resolved by the§ 101 analysis," and,
although "preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the
absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility."
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
2015); cf OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362---63
(Fed. Cir. 2015) ("[T]hat the claims do not preempt all price optimization or
may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make
them any less abstract").
9
Appeal2018-000980
Application 14/449,034
II. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants argue the Examiner's obviousness "rejection is in error
because Lin in view of Huang fails to disclose all of the elements of
Appellant[s'] claims," "and there would have been no apparent reason that
would have caused one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the techniques
described by Lin in view of Huang to arrive at the claimed features." App.
Br. 15. Particularly, Appellants contend the following:
The Examiner has yet to provide any evidence of a method
including, e.g., signaling a multiple of a smallest coding unit size
in sequence level syntax information in a video bitstream as a
picture size, as having existed in the prior art. The Examiner has
instead relied upon Lin, which expressly discloses signaling a
coded width and coded height of a picture in "units of 2 pixels,"
which are not smallest coding units as set forth in Appellant[s']
claim 1.
Reply Br. 13 ( emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, that the combination of Lin and Huang teaches or suggests the
limitations of claim 1:
at the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify Lin to: (1) encode the
respective quadtree data structures, comprising encoding split
flags of the quadtree data structures representing whether the
coding units corresponding to the quadtree data structures are
partitioned into smaller coding units; (2) signal the smallest
coding unit size in sequence level syntax information, and
(3) adopt the coding unit (CU) as HEVC nomenclature and
functional substitute for a block structure of MPEG and H.264
standards, as taught in Huang, in order to provide a more flexible
block partitioning and encoding structure for encoding video
using the HEVC standard.
Ans. 13-14 ( citing Huang ,r 31 ).
10
Appeal2018-000980
Application 14/449,034
Appellants' Specification explains that, "[fJor block-based video
coding, a video slice (i.e., a video frame or a portion of a video frame) may
be partitioned into video blocks, which may also be referred to as treeblocks,
coding units (CUs) and/or coding nodes," and the smallest coding unit "may
refer to the smallest coding unit size used to code a picture when several
possible CU sizes are available." Spec. ,r,r 4, 43. Appellants do not show
that the claimed "smallest coding unit," in light of the Specification, is
distinguishable from Lin's teaching of "resolution being a multiple of a
ma[]croblock (16 pixel), sub-macroblock (8 pixel), a pixel itself, 2-pixel
units, 'or other sets of pixels.' Lin, Paragraphs 10, 17, 48-50, 82-84, and
91."3 Ans. 6 (emphasis omitted); see also Final Act. 12, 13 ("[Lin] specifies
the coded width of the frames within the entry point segment in units of 2
pixels,[] corresponding to multiples of signaled coding units defined by
pixels and groups of pixels"). Nor do Appellants persuade us the Examiner
errs in finding Lin teaches signaling coding information. See Final Act. 12-
13; Ans. 13; Lin ,r,r 48-50, 55, 82-86.
Huang, as correctly found by the Examiner, combines with Lin by
teaching the "quad-tree structures being power of 2 divisible blocks of pixels
such as macro blocks, sub-macroblocks, 2-pixels, and pixels of Lin, and
teaches that this size can be communicated with the encoded video." Ans. 7;
see also Final Act. 14; Huang Figs. 1, 3, ,r 32. Although Appellants argue
that Lin discloses a "fixed unit size" (App. Br. 19), Huang discloses that
"[t]he partitioning of coding units may be based on a quadtree structure to
3 We note Huang discloses "[i]n H.264 video coding standard, the
underlying video frames are divided into slices, where each slice consists of
non-overlapping macroblocks as the smallest coding unit." Huang ,r 33.
11
Appeal2018-000980
Application 14/449,034
partition the coding unit into four smaller coding units of equal size ....
until it reaches the smallest CU (SCU)." Huang ,r 31. Similarly, although
Appellants argue that Lin's unit of two pixels "does not include syntax
elements defining prediction data and residual data, contrary to the coding
unit defined by Appellant[s'] claim 1" (App. Br. 18; see also id. at 19, 20),
the Examiner instead modifies Lin as "using the HEVC standard" from
Huang, specifically HEVC's coding unit structure. Ans. 13-14.
Appellants present alternative proposed combinations of Lin and
Huang. See, e.g., Reply Br. 13 ("the system resulting from the combination
of Lin and Huang would continue to signal a CODED_ WIDTH value and a
CODED_ HEIGHT value as a multiple of a unit of 2 pixels"); see also
Reply Br. 16. Appellants, however, do not provide sufficient technical
reasoning or argument to persuade us the Examiner's findings, with regard
to how one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references,
is in error. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill
would have combined Lin and Huang "in order to provide a more flexible
block partitioning and encoding structure for encoding video using the
HEVC standard." Ans. 14. The Examiner's findings are reasonable, as "[a]
person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton" (KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)), who
is not "compelled to adopt every single aspect of ... [a reference's] teaching
without the exercise of independent judgment" (Lear Siegler, Inc. v.
Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Thus, we do not find
the Examiner's combination of Lin and Huang "represented an unobvious
step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
12
Appeal2018-000980
Application 14/449,034
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1. Appellants advance no further substantive arguments
for the remaining claims. See App. Br. 24--29. Thus, we sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 2-20 for the reasons discussed above.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is affirmed.
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
13