Ex Parte Liao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 6, 2017

12969016 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/969,016 12/15/2010 Yupeng Liao 000118-001000US 3437
68155 7590 03/08/2017
FOUNTAINHEAD LAW GROUP, PC
Chad R. Walsh
900 LAFAYETTE STREET
SUITE 301
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
EXAMINER
MAHMUD, FARHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/08/2017 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):
docketing@fountainheadlaw.com
rbaumann@fountainheadlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUPENG LIAO, KANG KANG, and
ZHIBING WANG
Appeal 2016-007526
Application 12/969,016
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—24. App. Br. 8.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We reverse.
1 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellants’ arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: the Non-Final Action mailed July 1, 2015 (“Non-Final Act.”); the
Appeal Brief filed November 23, 2015 (“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer
mailed June 8, 2016 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed August 2, 2016
(“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2016-007526
Application 12/969,016
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the present invention as follows:
A method and apparatus for encoding a source media
program is disclosed. In one embodiment, the method comprises
the steps of transcoding the source media program to produce a
constant video quality transcoded version of the media program,
determining if a portion of constant video quality version of the
transcoded media program fails to satisfy a constraint, if the
portion of the transcoded media program fails to satisfy the
constraint, adjusting at least one transcoding parameter of a set
of transcoding parameters, transcoding the portion of the source
media program according to the adjusted at least one transcoding
parameter to produce a constant bit rate version of the portion of
the transcoded media program, and substituting the constant bit
rate version of the portion of the transcoded media program for
the constant video quality portion of the transcoded media
program.
Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed
claims:
1. A method of encoding a source media program, the
method comprising:
(a) before a request for transmission of the media program,
performing a first pass transcoding for all frames of the source
media program to produce a constant video quality transcoded
version of the source media program, wherein the constant video
quality transcoded version is transcoded by a transcoder
operating in a first mode that targets a video quality;
(b) after performing the first pass transcoding of all the
frames of the source media program, analyzing all of the frames
of the constant video quality transcoded version using an interval
of a plurality of frames;
(c) determining when a plurality of frames of the constant
video quality version of the transcoded media program fail to
2
Appeal 2016-007526
Application 12/969,016
satisfy a constraint related to a bit rate based on the analyzing of
all the frames using the interval;
(d) when the plurality of frames of the constant video
quality transcoded version fail to satisfy the constraint, adjusting
at least one transcoding parameter of a set of transcoding
parameters such that the constraint can be satisfied by a constant
bit rate transcoding of the plurality of frames of the source media
program;
(e) after the first pass transcoding of all the frames of the
source media program, performing a second pass transcoding of
the plurality of frames of the source media program according to
the adjusted at least one transcoding parameter to produce a
constant bit rate version of the plurality of frames of the source
media program, wherein the constant bit rate version of the
plurality of frames of the source media program is transcoded by
the transcoder operating in a second mode that targets the bit rate;
(f) in response to producing the plurality of frames of the
constant bitrate version, substituting the constant bit rate version
of the plurality of frames for the plurality of frames in the
constant video quality transcoded version to generate a
transcoded source media program;
(g) before the request for transmission, storing the
transcoded source media program in storage as a version of the
source media program to be transmitted; and
(h) providing the version of the transcoded source media
program from the storage for transmission in response to the
request for the version.
Claims 1—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gutman (US 2009/0052540 Al; published Feb. 26, 2009)
in view of Koizumi (US 2007/0116130 Al; published May 24, 2007) and
Sackstein (US 2009/0310668 Al; published Dec. 17, 2009).
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
3
Appeal 2016-007526
Application 12/969,016
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner’s explanation of the findings and conclusions
underlying the obviousness rejection is not a model of clarity. Cf. Non-Final
Act. 5—8:
[1] 19. Regarding Claim 15, Gutman et al. teaches an apparatus
for encoding a source media program . . . , comprising:
[1] 20. a first encoder... for encoding the source media program
to produce a constant video quality transcoded version of the
media program before the request for transmission, wherein the
constant video quality transcoded version is transcoded by the
transcoder operating in a first mode that targets a video quality
. .
[1] 21. a constraint decision module . . . determining when a
plurality of frames of the constant video quality version of the
transcoded media program fails to satisfy a constraint. . .;
[1] 23. a second encoder . . . performing a second pass ... for
encoding of the plurality of frames of the source media program
according to the adjusted at least one transcoding parameter to
produce a constant bit rate version of the plurality of frames of
the source media program, wherein the constant bit rate version
of the plurality of frames of the source media program is encoded
by the second encoder operating in a second mode that targets a
bit rate.
with id. at 9:
[1] 26. However, Gutman et al. does not explicitly teach or
disclose a first transcoder for performing a first pass transcoding
for all frames of the source media program to produce a constant
video quality transcoded version of the source media program,
wherein the constant video quality transcoded version is
transcoded by the first transcoder operating in a first mode that
4
Appeal 2016-007526
Application 12/969,016
targets a video quality; a constraint decision module for
analyzing all of the frames of the constant video quality
transcoded version using an interval of a plurality of frames after
performing the first pass transcoding of all the frames of the
source media program and determining when a plurality of
frames of the constant video quality version of the transcoded
media program fail to satisfy a constraint related to a bit rate
based on the analyzing of all the frames using the interval; a
second transcoder for performing a second pass transcoding of
the plurality of frames portion of the source media program
according to the adjusted at least one transcoding parameter to
produce a constant bit rate version of the plurality of frames
portion of the transcoded source media program after the first
pass transcoding of all the frames of the source media program,
wherein the constant bit rate version of the plurality of frames
portion of the transcoded source media program is transcoded by
the transcoder operating in a second mode that targets the bit rate.
As best as we can determine, though, the Examiner appears to initially
find that Gutman does not teach constant bit rate transcoding or constant
video quality transcoding, as claimed:
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the
apparatus for encoding a source media program of Gutman et al.,
to include the constant bit rate and constant video quality
transcoders of Koizumi et al. as shown above, in order to provide
a moving picture signal encoding apparatus capable of reducing
the scale of a circuit that acquires the information required to
calculate the degree of difficulty of encoding and achieving high­
speed encoding processing.
Non-Final Act. 11 (citing Koizumi 110).
However, the Examiner subsequently shifts positions, finding that
Gutman at least suggests, inter alia, performing first- and second-pass
transcoding of a source media program (Ans. 3 4) (citing Gutman || 22,
51), and “clearly implies performing a second pass on encoding and
5
Appeal 2016-007526
Application 12/969,016
producing a constant bit rate version” (id. at 4 (citing Gutman | 53)). The
Examiner also clarifies that “Koizumi is brought in as a reference to
explicitly teach two-pass transcoding [that] takes a media already processed
with respect to quality and again processes it with respect to a target bit
rate.” Id. (citing Koizumi || 7, 8, 36, 43).
The Examiner further finds that the combination of Gutman and
Koizumi fails to teach a splicer for “substituting the constant bit rate version
of the portion of the transcoded media program for the constant video
quality portion of the transcoded media program.” Non-Final Act. 12.
However, the Examiner finds that Sackstein teaches a splicer, as claimed,
and that it would have been obvious to include Sackstein’s splicer “in order
to provide delivery of a variable number of video streams having relatively
low video quality degradation.” Id. (citing Sackstein 111).
Appellants raise three general arguments (App. Br. 9-14): Appellants
first argue that “the cited reference do not disclose or suggest performing a
second pass transcoding to produce a constant bit rate version.” Id. at 9-10.
Appellants next argue that “[t]he cited references do not disclose or suggest
an interval of a plurality of frames that is used to analyze all of the frames
using the interval or a constraint.” Id. at 11—13. Appellants finally argue
that “[i]t would not [have been] obvious to modify Koizumi to perform a
constant bit rate version encoding of a plurality of frames or combine
Koizumi with Gutman.” Id. at 13—14.
With respect to the first general argument, Appellants more
specifically contend that Gutman does not disclose or suggest the elements
performed by the claimed second transcoder. Reply Br. 2. In Appellants’
view, Gutman does not have anything to do with the details of the
6
Appeal 2016-007526
Application 12/969,016
transcoding because Gutman merely discloses that a channel loader selects
slices of the previously encoded video streams that have already been loaded
onto the delivery channel. Id. at 2—3 (citing Gutman 121).
Appellants further contend that Koizumi is directed toward a 2-pass
variable bit rate encoder that adjusts the bitrate on a per-frame basis.
App. Br. 10-11 (citing, e.g., Koizumi H 5, 6); Reply Br. 3. According to
Appellants, “[t]he Examiner’s Answer has not proven that the second pass
transcoding in Koizumi is directed to a constant bitrate for a plurality of
frames.” Reply Br. 3.
ANALYSIS
Paragraph 22 of Gutman, upon which the Examiner relies (see
Ans. 3), teaches that video streams may be loaded onto the delivery channel
in the form of constant bit rate streams, variable bit rate streams, or pseudo
variable bit rate streams in which the channel loader may select different bit
rates every couple of seconds. Gutman 122. Paragraphs 51 and 53 of
Gutman, upon which the Examiner further relies (see Ans. 3—4), likewise
relate to the manner in which encoded segments of the video stream are
loaded onto the delivery channel. These passages do not disclose the details
of the video streams’ initial encoding processes. That is, the cited passages
do not teach or suggest 2-pass transcoding, much less such a 2-pass
transcoding process wherein the second pass transcodes a constant bit rate
version.
Koizumi’s invention is directed to “an apparatus for encoding input
moving pictures signals using a 2-pass variable bit rate system.” Koizumi
111. Koizumi further explains that during the first pass, “[t]he stream
7
Appeal 2016-007526
Application 12/969,016
analyzing section 5 creates information required to calculate the degree of
difficulty of encoding per frame . . . and outputs the information to the
encoding degree-of-difficulty calculating section 6.” Id. at 146. In the
second pass, “the bit rate calculating section 11 calculates a target bit rate
from a target average bit rate set in advance from the CPU 15 and the
information on the degree of difficulty of encoding [on a per frame basis]
input from the buffer controller 7.” Id. at 54. In short, Koizumi is directed
to only variable bit rate encoding—not constant bit rate encoding.
Moreover, Koizumi encodes the entire moving picture in the second
pass according to bit rates that are calculated from the first pass. Koizumi
111. Koizumi does not substitute only pluralities of frames into the first-
encoded version of the moving picture.
The Examiner relies upon Sackstein for the limited purpose of
teaching a splicer for replacing segments of a video stream—not for teaching
a method that performs a second pass transcoding to produce a constant bit
rate version of the plurality of frames of the source media program. See
Non-Final Act. 12.
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner has not established that the
combined teachings of the cited art would have suggested a two-pass
transcoding process wherein the first pass produces a constant video quality
transcoded version and the second pass produces a constant bit rate
transcoded version of only a plurality of frames that are substituted into the
first version, as recited in the independent claims. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1,8, and 15, or of
claims 2—7, 9-14, and 16—24, which depend from these independent claims.
8
Appeal 2016-007526
Application 12/969,016
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—24 is reversed.
REVERSED
9