Ex Parte Divorra Escoda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2015

12734151 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121734,151 04/14/2010
24498 7590 12/15/2015
Robert D, Shedd, Patent Operations
THOMSON Licensing LLC
4 Research Way
3rd Floor
Princeton, NJ 08543
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Oscar Divorra Escoda
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.
PU070257 1717
EXAMINER
ADROVEL, WILLIAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2015 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@technicolor.com
pat. verlangieri@technicolor.com
russell. smith@technicolor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OSCAR DIVORA ESCODA and PENG YIN
Appeal2013-010910
Application 12/734,151 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision2 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19-25, and27-33 which are all the
pending claims. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Thomson Licensing.
App. Br. 3.
2 Our decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed April 11, 2013 ("Final
Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed June 4, 2013 ("App. Br."); the
Examiner's Answer mailed August 16, 2013 ("Ans."); Appellants' Reply
Brief filed September 6, 2013 ("Reply Br.") and the Specification filed April
14, 2010 ("Spec.").
Appeal2013-010910
Application 12/734, 151
REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19-25, and 27-33 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tanizawa et al. (US
2007 /0121731 Al, published May 31, 2007) ("Tanizawa"); Satoshi Kondo
and Hisao Sasai, A Motion Compensation Technique Using Sliced Blocks
And Its Application To Hybrid Video Coding, Visual Communications and
Image Processing, 30-37 (2005) ("Kondo"); and Yunyang Dai et al.,
Enlarged Block Sizes and Motion Search Ranges for High Definition Video
Coding, ICIP 2007, 421-24 (2007) ("Dai"). Final Act. 4--11.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
According to the Appellants, the present invention relates "generally
to video encoding and decoding and, more particularly, to methods and
apparatus for video encoding and decoding geometrically partitioned super
blocks." Spec. 1. Independent claims 1 and 17 are directed to apparatus,
independent claims 9 and 25 are directed to methods, and independent claim
33 is directed to video signal structure. Br. 26-27, 29, 31. Claim 1 recites:
An apparatus, comprising:
an encoder for encoding image data for at least a portion
of a picture, wherein the image data is formed by a geometric
partitioning that applies geometric partitions to picture block
partitions, the picture block partitions obtained from at least one
of top-down partitioning and bottom-up tree joining,
wherein the geometric partitioning is enabled for use at
partition sizes larger than a base partitioning size of a given
video coding standard or video coding recommendation used to
encode the image data.
Br. 24.
2
Appeal2013-010910
Application 12/734, 151
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19-25, and
27-33 in light of Appellants' arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and
the Reply Brief that the Examiner erred. We are not persuaded that
Appellants identify reversible error. We agree with and adopt the
Examiner's findings, reasoning, and conclusions as set forth in the Final
Action (Final Act. 2-11) and the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 3-16). We
highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellants argue the cited combination of references fails to teach or
suggest, "wherein the geometric partitioning is enabled for use at partition
sizes larger than a base partitioning size of a given video coding standard or
video coding recommendation used to encode the image data" as recited in
independent claims 1, 9, and 33 and "wherein the geometric partitioning is
enabled for use at partition sizes larger than a base partitioning size of a
given video coding standard or video coding recommendation used to
decode the image data," as recited in independent claims 17 and 25. 3
(Emphasis added.) App. Br. 14--17; Reply Br. 8-13. In the application, it
states, "as used herein, the phrase 'base partitioning size' generally refers to
a macro block as defined in the MPEG-4 A VC standard" (Spec. 10) and, in
the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, it states, "a macroblock size of 16x16 is
the base partitioning size for, e.g., the MPEG-4 A VC Standard" (App. Br.
3 If prosecution is continued, we recommend that the Examiner consider
whether the claims are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112. See MPEP 2173.
In particular, we recommend consideration of whether the phrase, "base
partitioning size of a given coding video coding standard or video coding
recommendation" renders the metes and bounds of the claim scope unclear.
3
Appeal2013-010910
Application 12/734, 151
-1 ,..., T""'ti. 1 ~ -1 Al'- 4 rT"i • TT 1 1 T"""\r. • •, 1 1 , 1 T"""1 • 1 ,
l 1; Kep1y tlr. 14 J. l amzawa, K_Onao, ana uai cnea oy tne bxammer reiate
to use of H.264 MPEG-4 A VC standard which "allows coding of video
frames using block sizes of 4x4, 8x8 and 16x16." Ans. 5. The Examiner
finds, "Dai discloses that, at the time of the appellant's invention, using
macroblock sizes larger that 16x16, such as 32x32 and 64x64, was known
and implemented using a video coder based on the H.264 standard." Ans. 6.
In support of this finding, the Examiner cites the third paragraph of the
Introduction of Dai which states, "extended MB [macro block] modes such
as 64x64 and 32x32 MB sizes were incorporated to H.264." Id. Thus, the
finding of the Examiner with regard to the disputed limitation in the
independent claims is well supported by the cited art and we are not
persuaded of any error in this regard.
Appellants argue that the combination of the teachings of cited
references is improper because use of a larger macroblock size as taught by
Dai would violate the basic principle of operation of Tanizawa and Kondo
and that the cited references teach away from their combination. App. Br.
18-20; Reply Br. 11-16. These arguments are not supported as Appellants
fail to provide any evidence or to cite any passages from the references or
elsewhere which would support a conclusion that use of a larger macro block
could not be incorporated into the apparatus and processes taught in
Tanizawa and Kondo or that teaches away from the claimed invention. Id.
In addition, Dai contains the following passages that suggest the
4 The application also states, "'base partitioning size' may be different in
other coding standards and recommendations, as is readily apparent to one
of ordinary skill in this and related arts." Spec. 10-11. Thus, according to
the application, "base partitioning size" is explicitly not subject to a limiting
definition or any particular size.
4
Appeal2013-010910
Application 12/734, 151
combination made by the Examiner: "Experiments show that an average bit
rate gain of 27 % across QP range can be achieved by using enlarged MB
and extended motion search range" (Dai, Abstract) and "The R-D [rate-
distortion] model for HD video coding was derived to show that the R-D
gain achieved by introducing a larger block size in flat regions" (Dai,
Conclusion and Future Work). And, the Examiner provides the following
reasoning with rational underpinnings for combining the references, "the
combination of references is proper because all three references are based on
the H.264 standard which makes them analogous. Furthermore, the field of
endeavor of each prior art is directed at improving coding efficiency of
video using the H.264 standard." Ans. 10. We see no error in the
Examiner's reasoning for combining the references or in the conclusion of
obviousness.
We sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, 17, 25, and 33.
We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 4--8, 12-16, 20-24, and
28-32 for which no separate arguments in support of patentability are made
by Appellants.
Appellants present a separate argument in support of dependent
claims 3, 11, 19, and 27. App. Br. 21-24; Reply Br. 17-20. Claim 3 is
representative and recites the following disputed limitation, "wherein said
encoder combines at least one of the geometric partitions having a partition
size larger than the base partitioning size with a base partition having the
base partitioning size, the base partition corresponding to at least a portion of
at least one of the picture block partitions." App. Br. 26. Specifically,
Appellants contend the cited art does not teach or suggest combining a
partition size larger than the base partitioning size with a base partition
5
Appeal2013-010910
Application 12/734, 151
having the base part1t10ning size. App. Br. 23; Reply Br. 18-20. The
Examiner finds, "[ t ]he process of encoding a video frame as disclosed in the
H.264 standard includes using a combination of block sizes which include
4x4, 8x8, 16x16 and in the case of Dai 32x32." Ans. 14--15. The Examiner
supports this finding with a quote from Dai and provides an explanation of
the quoted passage which explains the basis for the finding. Ans. 15. In
addition, the Examiner quotes another passage from Dai and explains why it
teaches or the disputed "combining" limitation. Ans. 15-16. The cited
passages of Dai support the finding of the Examiner with regard to the
disputed limitation. We are not persuaded of error by this argument and
sustain the rejection of claims 3, 11, 19, and 27.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 11-17, 19-25, and 27-33 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
kis
6