Ex Parte Chien et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 11, 2018

13247785 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/247,785 09/28/2011
15150 7590 06/13/2018
Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A.
1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Wei-Jung Chien
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.
1010-684US01/103157 4404
EXAMINER
TRUONG, NGUYEN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2018 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 WEI-JUNG CHIEN, PEISONG CHEN,
and MARTA KARCZEWICZ
Appeal 2016-008575
Application 13/247,785
Technology Center 2400
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JOHN D. HAMANN, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 11, 17, 18, 23, 28-30, 39, 45, 46 and 51,
which are all of the claims pending in this application. 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Qualcomm, Inc. App.
Br. 3.
2 Claims 4--10, 12-16, 19-22, 24--27, 31-38, 40-44, 47-50, and 52-55 have
been withdrawn.
Appeal2016-008575
Application 13/247,785
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to adaptive motion vector resolution
signaling for video coding. Abstract. Claim 1 is exemplary and reads as
follows:
1. A method of encoding video data, the method comprising:
encoding a prediction unit of a coding unit of video data using a
motion vector having one of a first sub-pixel precision or a second, different
sub-pixel precision;
determining a context for encoding an indication of whether the
motion vector has the first sub-pixel precision or the second sub-pixel
precision using context adaptive binary arithmetic coding, wherein the
context comprises at least one of a depth of the coding unit or a size of the
prediction unit; and
entropy encoding the indication using the determined context in
accordance with context adaptive binary arithmetic coding.
REJECTION
Claims 1-3, 11, 17, 18, 23, 28-30, 39, 45, 46, and 51 stand rejected
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Lim et al., Description
of Video Coding Technology Proposal by SK Telecom, Sejong Univ. and
Sungkyunkwan Univ., Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC)
ofITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, Doc. JCTVC-Al 13
("SK").
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the cited portions of SK do not disclose the
"determining" step of claim 1. App. Br. 9. In particular, Appellants argue
SK does not disclose determining a context for encoding AMVP _flag ( or
any other indication of whether a motion vector has a first sub-pixel
2
Appeal2016-008575
Application 13/247,785
precision or a second sub-pixel precision), where the context comprises at
least one of a depth of a coding unit or a size of a prediction unit. Id. at 10.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred. The Examiner has
not identified with sufficient clarity where SK discloses the limitation "the
context comprises at least one of a depth of the coding unit or a size of the
prediction unit," as recited in claim 1. The Examiner cited all of SK's
section 2.6 and figures 2.5 and 2.6 as disclosing "where the syntax
comprises the size of the prediction unit." Ans. 5. Because the Examiner
has not fully developed the record to establish how the cited portions of SK
disclose the disputed claim limitation, we find speculation would be required
to affirm the Examiner on this record. We decline to engage in speculation.
Accordingly, on the record before us, we do not sustain the
Examiner's§ 102(a) rejection of independent claim 1, or the Examiner's
§ 102(a) rejection of independent claims 11, 18, 23, 28, 39, 46, and 51,
which contain similar limitations and which Appellants argue are patentable
for similar reasons. App. Br. 14--20. We also do not sustain the Examiner's
§ 102(a) rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 17, 29, 30, and 45, which stand
with the independent claims from which those claims depend.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 11, 17, 18,
23, 28-30, 39, 45, 46 and 51.
REVERSED
3