Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2018

13812187 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/812,187 01/25/2013
5073 7590
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
2001 ROSS A VENUE
SUITE 900
DALLAS, TX 75201-2980
06/29/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Li 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.
017997.0574 1037
EXAMINER
ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2018 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):
ptomaill@bakerbotts.com
ptomail2@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LI CHEN, ALOIS MARTIN BOCK,
and DAVID HORTON
Appeal 2017-008911
Application 13/812, 187
Technology Center 2400
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, HUNG H. BUI, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1---6 and 11-21. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Claims 1---6 and 13-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Cote (US 7,170,938 Bl; iss. Jan. 30, 2007). Final Act.
5-11.
Claims 11, 12, 20, and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Cote and Wells (US 6,310,915 Bl; iss. Oct. 30,
2001). Final Act. 12-16.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget
LM Ericsson (publ). App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-008911
Application 13/812, 187
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "improv[ing] the bitrate distribution in
a statistical multiplexing system." Spec. 2: 15-16. Claim 1 is illustrative and
reproduced below:
1. A method of processing video information, the
method comprising:
allocating a first portion of a buffer to a coded picture
buffer and a second portion of the buffer to a physical encoder
buffer;
based on a complexity of first received video information
determining that the first received video information may be
encoded at a bitrate that is less than a threshold bit rate;
adjusting the allocation of the first portion and the second
portion of the buffer by reducing the first portion allocated to the
coded picture buffer and increasing the second portion allocated
to the physical encoder buffer to allow an encoding of the first
received video information to be performed at the bitrate that is
less than the threshold bit rate;
encoding the first received video information at a first
encoded video bitrate that is less than the threshold video bit rate;
buffering, in the first portion of the buffer allocated to the
coded picture buffer, the first received video information that is
encoded at the first encoded video bitrate that is less than the
threshold video bit rate;
detecting a receipt of new video information having a
higher complexity than the first received video information;
based on the higher complexity of the new video
information, determining that the new video information is to be
encoded at a second encoded video bitrate greater than or equal
to the threshold bitrate; and
in response to the higher complexity of the new video
information, adjusting the allocation of the first portion and the
second portion of the buffer by increasing the first portion
allocated to the coded picture buffer and decreasing the second
portion allocated to the physical encoder buffer prior to encoding
2
Appeal 2017-008911
Application 13/812, 187
the new video information and storing the new information in the
coded picture buffer of the buffer.
ANALYSIS
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-6 AND 13-19 BY COTE
The Examiner finds Cote describes all limitations of claim 1. Final
Act. 6-9. In particular, the Examiner finds Cote's disclosure of transcoder
rate control describes the recited "reducing the first portion allocated to the
coded picture buffer" of claim 1. Final Act. 7 ( citing Cote col. 6, 11. 62---63 ).
In particular, the Examiner finds Cote's disclosure of transducer rate control
describes the recited "increasing the first portion allocated to the coded
picture buffer" of claim 1. Final Act. 8-9 ( citing Cote col. 6, 11. 62---67).
Appellants present several arguments, including:
Even to the extent that the [ video buffer verifier (VBV) in Cote]
is analogous to Appellants' coded picture buffer and Cote
discloses that the "size of the buffer will determine the frame size
variation allowable" ( Cote, Col. 2, lines 39-40), using the size of
the VBV buffer to determine target bit rate, as disclosed in Cote,
is not analogous to adjusting the size of the VBV buffer.
App. Br. 15.
[R ]educing the size of frames within a frame buffer 18 to ensure
that the VBV buffer 28 does not overflow is not analogous to
"adjusting the allocation of the first portion and the second
portion of the buffer by reducing the first portion allocated to the
coded picture buffer and increasing the second portion allocated
to the physical encoder buffer to allow an encoding of the first
received video information to be performed at the bitrate that is
less than the threshold bit rate," as recited in Claim 1. For
analogous reasons, Appellants also submit that Cote does not
disclose, teach, or suggest "in response to the higher complexity
of the new video information, adjusting the allocation of the first
portion and the second portion of the buffer by increasing the
first portion allocated to the coded picture buffer and decreasing
3
Appeal 2017-008911
Application 13/812, 187
the second portion allocated to the physical encoder buffer prior
to encoding the new video information and storing the new
information in the coded picture buffer of the buffer," as recited
in Claim 1.
App. Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 2-5.
In response, the Examiner explains "[t]he cited portions of Cote (as
above) provide an example of how to implement the claim, where the first
and second portions are video frames, and the transcoder adjusts the amount
of data flowing through the encoder's buffer through encoding rate control."
Ans. 11; see also Ans. 11-12 ("the decrease and increase in the first and
second portions can correspond to a change in compression/reduction of a
particular frame").
This appeal hinges on the following question: what is a "coded picture
buffer"?
According to Appellants, Cote's video buffer verifier (VBV)
corresponds to the claimed "coded picture buffer," and Cote does not reduce
or increase the size of the video buffer verifier (VBV). See App. Br. 15-16;
see also Reply Br. 2-5.
On the record before us, the Examiner does not find that the size of
Cote's video buffer verifier (VBV) is reduced or increased; rather, the
Examiner finds that a compressed video frame in Cote corresponds to the
claimed "coded picture buffer," and that changes in the compression ratio of
the video frame reduce or increase the size of the "coded picture buffer."
See Final Act. 7-9; Ans. 11-12.
Regarding the meaning of "coded picture buffer," Appellants'
Specification describes "[ e Jach main encoder 140 [ (Figure 1)] is connected
to a respective coded picture buffer (CPB) 145 [(Figure 1)] which is used
4
Appeal 2017-008911
Application 13/812, 187
during the encoding process. The CPB 145 is known as the Video Buffer
Verifier in a system where MPEG-2 encoding is used." Spec. 8:14--17.
Thus, we agree with Appellants that Cote's video buffer verifier
(VBV) corresponds to the claimed "coded picture buffer." We conclude that
the Examiner's interpretation of "coded picture buffer" as a compressed
video frame is overly broad and unreasonable, in light of the Specification.
Because the Examiner's findings are based on an erroneous claim
construction, the Examiner erred in finding that Cote's disclosure of
transcoder rate control describes the recited "reducing the first portion
allocated to the coded picture buffer" of claim 1 and the recited "increasing
the first portion allocated to the coded picture buffer" recited in claim 1.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and
its dependent claims 2---6.
We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims
13 and 19, which recite the same limitations of claim 1 discussed above, and
their dependent claims 14--18.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 11, 12, 20, AND 21 OVER COTE AND
WELLS
Independent claim 11 recites the same limitations of claim 1 discussed
above. Claim 12 depends from claim 11. Claims 20 and 21 depend from
claim 19. The Examiner does not rely upon Wells or obviousness to cure the
deficiency of Cote discussed above. See Final Act. 12-16; Ans. 15.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 11,
12, 20, and 21 for the same reasons discussed in connection with claim 1.
5
Appeal 2017-008911
Application 13/812, 187
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-6 and 11-21 is reversed.
REVERSED
6