Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2018

13550384 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/550,384 07/16/2012
15150 7590 08/23/2018
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.
1010-900US01/l 12856 9107
EXAMINER
ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2018 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-KUI WANG 1
Appeal2018-001238
Application 13/550,384
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19,
21, 22, 24--26, 28-30, 33, 34, 36-38, and 40-50, which are all of the
pending claims. See App. Br. 52---69. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Qualcomm Incorporated is listed as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
2 An appeal was filed for "Application No. 14/449,034 [(Appeal 2018-
000980)] that may be considered related to this Appeal." App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-00123 8
Application 13/550,384
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
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, 13, 19, 25, 29, 33, and 37 are independent. Claim 1 is
reproduced below for reference (with emphasis added):
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
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
2
Appeal 2018-00123 8
Application 13/550,384
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 Re} ections3
Claims 7, 10, 12, 29, 30, 42, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as lacking written description support. Final Act. 12.4
Claims 7, 10, 12, 29, 30, 42, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Final Act. 12.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24--26, 28-30,
33, 34, 36-38, and 40-50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
3 In the Answer, the Examiner withdraws the prior rejections of claims 7, 10,
12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 42, 43, 46, 47, 49, and 50 under the
enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Ans. 4--5.
4 The Examiner's written description rejection appears to rely on the analysis
provided with the indefiniteness rejection. See Final Act. 12-13. We, thus,
do not reach the written description rejection as it is cumulative to the
indefiniteness rejection. Cf In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir.
2009) (holding that obviousness rejections need not be reached upon
affirming a rejection of all claims as anticipated); In re Basel! Poliolefine,
547 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("Having concluded that the Board
properly affirmed the rejection of claims 1-52 of the '687 patent based on
obviousness-type double patenting in view of the '987 patent, we need not
address the remaining issues raised."); Ex parte Gutta, No. 2008-4366, 93
USPQ2d 1025, 1036 (BPAI 2009) (precedential) (declining to reach prior art
rejections because the decision regarding patentability under§§ 101 and 112
was dispositive ).
3
Appeal 2018-00123 8
Application 13/550,384
unpatentable over Lin (US 2006/0072669 Al; Apr. 6, 2006) and Huang (US
2012/0106652 Al; May 3, 2012). Final Act. 16.
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
errs. We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions as our own, and
add the following for emphasis. 5
A. Indefiniteness
The Examiner finds the following claim limitations are directed to
means plus function limitations:
Claims 7, 10, 12, [and] 42 recite "means for determining
means for encoding ... means for signaling ... ,"
Claims 29, 30, [and] 46 recite "means for obtaining a coded
video . . . means for decoding the respective quadtree data
structures ... means for obtaining sequence level syntax
5 In related appeal 2018-000980, the claims were subject to a rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to unpatentable subject matter. We note
no similar rejection is made in the present case. "The Board's primary role
is to review the adverse decision as presented by the Examiner, and not to
conduct its own separate examination of the claims." MPEP § 1213.02.
Although the Board has discretion to enter a new ground of rejection for
issues not before us (see 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b)), no inference should be
drawn when we decline to exercise that discretion.
4
Appeal 2018-00123 8
Application 13/550,384
information ... means for obtaining sequence level information ...
means for decoding ... means for storing the decoded pictures in
a decoded picture buffer .... "
Final Act. 12-13. The Examiner finds these limitations are indefinite,
because "the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure,
material, or acts for the claimed function[ s ]," and although the
"Specification describes a means as software and/or firmware running on
one or more processors embodied on an integrated circuit or an FPGA in
Paragraphs 98-99, software does not provide structure for each means
claimed as a component of an apparatus." Id. at 12, 13.
Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection is in error because the
"specification discloses corresponding structure, material, or acts" for the
disputed limitations. App. Br. 25, 29. Particularly, Appellants contend the
Specification provides structure, such as the descriptions of the video
encoder and decoder, each of which "may be implemented 'as one or more
microprocessors, digital signal processors (DSPs ), application specific
integrated circuits (ASICs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs),
discrete logic, software, hardware, firmware or combinations thereof."'
App. Br. 24 (quoting Spec. ,r 28); see also App. Br. ,r,r 25, 29.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in concluding the claims are
indefinite because the Specification fails to adequately describe sufficient
structure for performing the claimed functions. See Ans. 10-11; Ex parte
Rodriguez, 92 USPQ2d 1395 (BPAI 2009) (precedential) (discussing
functional claiming and claim definiteness); see also Aristocrat Techs. Aust!.
Pty Ltd. v. Int'! Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Appellants' Specification provides that "the functions described may be
implemented in hardware, software, firmware, or any combination thereof'
5
Appeal 2018-00123 8
Application 13/550,384
(Spec. ,r 96) and "may be executed by one or more processors, such as one
or more .... general purpose microprocessors" (Spec. ,r 98). The disclosed
video decoder and encoder, as relied on by Appellants, can "be implemented
as one or more microprocessors, ... software, hardware, firmware or
combinations thereof" Spec. ,r 28 ( emphasis added); see also Spec. ,r 98;
App. Br. 24, 25, 27, and 28. Accordingly, the claimed "means" limitations
encompass software.
Appellants' disclosure, however, does not provide the sufficient
structure, such as an algorithm, required to support these means plus
function limitations which encompass software. See Blackboard, Inc. v.
Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (the requisite
structure is more than a description of the functions to be performed; rather,
the disclosure must describe how the functions are performed). For support,
Appellants point to portions of the Specification that describe various
modules as the "element[ s] responsible for" the functionality, but do not
identify a description of the sequence of steps involved. App. Br. 28; see
also Spec. ,r 99 ("Various components, modules, or units are described in
this disclosure to emphasize functional aspects of devices configured to
perform the disclosed techniques, but do not necessarily require realization
by different hardware units."). Simply reciting the claimed functions in the
Specification, while saying nothing about how the computer or processor
ensures that those functions are performed, is not a sufficient disclosure for
an algorithm that, by definition, must contain a sequence of steps. See Ans.
11; see also Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312 (Fed. Cir.
2012).
6
Appeal 2018-00123 8
Application 13/550,384
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in concluding
claims 7, 10, 12, 29, 30, 42, and 46 are indefinite.
B. Obviousness
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. 29. 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. 9.
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
7
Appeal 2018-00123 8
Application 13/550,384
block partitioning and encoding structure for encoding video
using the HEVC standard.
Ans. 13-14 (citing Huang ,r 31); Final Act. 21.
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, sub-macroblock, pixel, and
2-pixel units," (Ans. 6 (emphasis omitted)), particularly in view of Huang's
teaching that "[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). See Ans. 12 ("In
this case, increments of 2, 16, and 32 pixels provide examples of the claimed
smallest coding unit used in a video sequence corresponding to a node of a
respective quadtree data structure, which uses dimensions as powers-of-2
such as 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 and so on"); Final Act. 17, 19-20; Lin ,r,r 10, 86, and
91. Nor do Appellants persuade us the Examiner errs in finding Lin teaches
signaling the coding information. See Final Act. 19-20; Ans. 12; Lin ,r,r 48-
50, 55, and 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
8
Appeal 2018-00123 8
Application 13/550,384
teaches that this size can be communicated with the encoded video." Ans. 7;
see also Final Act. 20-21; Huang Figs. 1, 3, ,r,r 32, 37, and 39-40. Although
Appellants argue that Lin discloses blocks of "fixed size" (App. Br. 32),
Huang discloses that "[t]he partitioning of coding units may be based on a
quadtree structure to 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. 32; see also
id. at 33, 33), the Examiner instead modifies Lin as "using the HEVC
standard" from Huang, specifically HEVC 's coding unit structure. Ans. 13-
14; Final Act. 21. We further disagree with Appellants' assertion that one of
ordinary skill would not apply Huang's teachings to Lin's macroblocks
(Reply Br. 7); Huang teaches "[t]he macroblock-based slice partition for
H.264 can be extended to the LCU-based slice partition for HEVC" (Huang
i133).
Appellants present alternative proposed combinations of Lin and
Huang. See, e.g., App. Br. 36 ("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"); Reply Br. 11.
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
9
Appeal 2018-00123 8
Application 13/550,384
standard." Ans. 13-14; Final Act. 21. The Examiner's findings and
conclusion 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).
We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent
claim 1. Appellants advance no further substantive arguments for the
remaining claims. See App. Br. 38-50. Thus, we sustain the obviousness
rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24--26, 28-
30, 33, 34, 36-38, and 40-50 for the reasons discussed above.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15,
16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24--26, 28-30, 33, 34, 36-38, and 40-50 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
10