Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 12, 2018

14237612 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/237,612 02/07/2014
124169 7590 06/14/2018
BRAKE HUGHES BELLERMANN LLP
c/o CPA Global
900 Second A venue South
Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jin-Yue 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.
0120-199001 2675
EXAMINER
VO,TUNGT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2018 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):
uspto@brakehughes.com
docketing@brakehughes.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIN-YUE CHEN and XIAO-MEI HE
Appeal2017-010330
Application 14/237,612
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, BETH Z. SHAW, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-3 9 and 41, which represent all the
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to coding and transmitting 3D (three
dimension) video sequences in a wireless communication system. Spec.
1:5-7.
1 Appellants identify Google Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-010330
Application 14/237,612
Claims 1 and 39 are representative and reproduced below:
1. A method for conveying three dimension (3D) video data, the
method comprising:
receiving multiview video data;
generating spatial disparity information based on the multiview video
data;
determining a 3D video content quality level capability of a
destination device;
selecting a 3D video content quality level for the video data based on
the determined 3D video content quality level capability;
encoding the multiview video data based on the selected 3D video
content quality level to produce encoded video data; and
conveying the encoded video data to the destination device.
39. A multimedia communication device capable of receiving a three
dimension (3D) video service, the multimedia communication device
compnsmg:
a user interface comprising a display screen; and
a processor configured to receive, via the display screen, an
instruction to establish a 3D video service, comprising one of a 3D video
service quality level and a 2D video quality service level, assemble an uplink
video service quality level request indicating the 3D video service quality
level or the 2D video service quality level, and convey the assembled request
to another multimedia communication device, wherein the processor further
is configured to convey video content quality level capabilities of the device
to the another multimedia communication device.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-38 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(e) as
anticipated by Bauza et al. (US 2012/0084652 Al, published Apr. 5, 2012)
("Bauza"). Final Act. 3.
The Examiner rejected claims 39 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(e) as
anticipated by Horlander (US 2012/0300031 Al, published Nov. 29, 2012).
Final Act. 9.
2
Appeal2017-010330
Application 14/237,612
The Examiner rejected claim 39 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(e) as
anticipated by Kawakami (US 2011/0157312 Al, published June 30, 2011).
Final Act. 10.
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Brief, the Examiner's
rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments.
Claim 1
We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Bauza. On
this record, the Examiner has not demonstrated Bauza discloses "selecting a
3D video content quality level for the video data based on the determined
3D video content quality level capability," as recited in claim 1 (emphasis
added). Indeed, as Appellants point out, Bauza does not appear to disclose
any quality "level" of video content. App. Br. 10. Rather, the cited portions
of Bauza relate to a user selection of preferences "to use in rendering 3D
content." Bauza ,r 79. The Examiner has not explained sufficiently, on this
record, why the user selection of these preferences discloses "selecting a 3D
video content quality level for the video data based on the determined 3D
video content quality level capability," as recited in claim 1 ( emphasis
added). Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, or of claims
2-10, which depend from claim 1.
For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 11, 19, and 30, which require determining 3D video content quality
levels. We also do not sustain dependent claims 12-18, 20-29 and 31-38,
which depend directly or indirectly from one of independent claims 11, 19,
3
Appeal2017-010330
Application 14/237,612
and 30.
Claim 39
Independent claim 39 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Horlander, and separately, as anticipated by Kawakami. Final
Act. 9-11. We address these rejections in tum.
Hor lander
Appellants argue Horlander does not disclose "convey video content
quality level capabilities of the device to the another multimedia
communication device," as recited in claim 39. App. Br. 16. We are not
persuaded by this argument. As the Examiner finds, and we agree,
Horlander describes how a controller communicates with an audio/video
interface and receives information from the audio/video interface as to
"whether a 2D or 3D display device is connected thereto." Ans. 39
( emphasis omitted) ( citing Horlander ,r 43). Horlander also describes how,
based on the type of display device, the controller outputs the appropriate
signal as either a 3D half-resolution video signal or a 2D full-resolution
video signal. Id. at 39--40; Horlander ,r 44.
Appellants argue Horlander's display device is not "described as" a
"communication device" and therefore Horlander does not disclose "the
another communication multimedia device." App. Br. 17. Yet, Appellants
provide insufficient evidence that the Specification or claims limit "the
another multimedia communication device" in a way that, under a broad but
reasonable interpretation, is not encompassed by Horlander's teachings.
Thus, Appellants do not persuasively distinguish Horlander' s disclosure
from the claimed "convey video content quality level capabilities of the
device to the another multimedia communication device," as recited in claim
4
Appeal2017-010330
Application 14/237,612
39. We agree with the Examiner that Horlander, therefore, teaches
"convey[ing] video content quality level capabilities of the device to the
another multimedia communication device," as recited in claim 39.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by Horlander.
Kawakami
Appellants also argue Kawakami does not describe that its
communication unit should "convey [its] video content quality level
capabilities" to another entity in Figure 23. App. Br. 18. On this record, we
cannot discern which element( s) of Kawakami the Examiner maps to the
claimed "the processor further is configured to convey video content quality
level capabilities of the device to the another multimedia communication
device." Accordingly, constrained as we are by the record before us, we do
not sustain this rejection of claim 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated
by Kawakami.
Dependent Claim 41
Claim 41 depends from claim 1. As Appellants point out (App. Br.
17), by way of its dependency, claim 41 also includes the features of claim
1. Yet, the Final Office Action does not address the elements of claim 1
with reference to Horlander. That is, in alleging claim 41 to be anticipated
by Horlander, the rejection does not address the language of claim 1 that is
part of claim 41. On this record, we therefore do not sustain the rejection of
dependent claim 41.
5
Appeal2017-010330
Application 14/237,612
CONCLUSION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-38 and 41 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
We affirm the rejection of claim 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over
Horlander, but we reverse the rejection of claim 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
over Kawakami. Because affirm at least one ground of rejection with
respect to claim 39, the Examiner's decision to reject claim 39 is affirmed.
See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(a)(l).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claim 39 is affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3 8 and 41 is reversed.
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
6