Ex Parte Lin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

13071526 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/071,526 03/25/2011 Jian-Liang Lin
27765 7590 09/02/2016
NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION
P.O. BOX506
MERRIFIELD, VA 22116
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.
MTKP1081USA 4195
EXAMINER
ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 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):
Patent.admin.uspto.Rcv@naipo.com
mis.ap.uspto@naipo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIAN-LIANG LIN and FANG-YI HSIEH
Appeal2015-005224
Application 13/071,526
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-15, 17-26, 28, and 30-33, which constitute all
of the pending claims. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal2015-005224
Application 13/071,526
TI'IJVENTION
"The disclosed embodiments of the present invention relate to
decoding video frames, and more particularly, to methods for controlling a
video decoder to selectively skip one or more video frames[.]" Spec. iJ 2.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for processing an input bitstream
including a plurality of video frames, the method comprising:
deriving an indication data from decoding of a current
video frame; and
controlling a video decoder to decode or skip a next video
frame by referring to at least the indication data derived from
decoding of the current video frame and a video decoder
capability of the video decoder,
wherein the step of deriving the indication data comprises:
gathering statistics of specific video characteristics
obtained from decoding the current video frame;
summing up values of the specific video
characteristics corresponding to the current video frame to
generate an accumulation value;
calculating a weighted average value of the
accumulation value and a historical average value derived
from the previous video frame(s); and
determining the indication data according to the
accumulation value and the weighted average value.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 31-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite. Final Act. 5-7.
2
Appeal2015-005224
Application 13/071,526
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-15, 17-26, 28, and 30-33 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Yu (US 6,028,648; Feb. 22,
2000). Final Act. 7-18.
ISSUES
Appellants' contentions present us with the following issues:
1) Did the Examiner err in finding Yu discloses "summing up
values of the specific video characteristics corresponding to the
current video frame to generate an accumulation value," as
recited in independent claims 1 and 31?
2) Did the Examiner err in finding Yu discloses "indication data is
generated according to a bitstream length of the current video
frame," as recited in independent claims 13 and 32?
3) Did the Examiner err in finding Yu discloses "estimating a time
period between [i] a video display time point of a decoded video
frame preceding the at least one first decoded video frame and
[ii] a video display time point of a second decoded video frame
corresponding to the second frame" (numerals added), as recited
in independent claims 26 and 33?
INDEFINITENESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 31-33
Appellants do not present arguments against the Examiner's rejection
of claims 31-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We therefore
sustain the rejection. SeeHyattv. Dudas, 551F.3d1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir.
2008) ("When the appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection to the
Board, ... the Board may treat any argument with respect to that ground of
rejection as waived.").
3
Appeal2015-005224
Application 13/071,526
ISSUE 1: ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF
CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 6-12, AND 31
We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred in
finding Yu discloses "summing up values of the specific video
characteristics corresponding to the current video frame to generate an
accumulation value," as required by independent claim 1, its dependent
claims 2, 4, and 6-12, and independent claim 31. See Br. 7.
The Examiner finds Yu discloses the disputed limitation by
determining an increase in frame buffer fullness. Ans. 4 (citing Yu col. 3, 11.
9-12; col. 4, 11. 55-56). In support of this finding the Examiner states: (1)
"Appellant failed to specifically claim what the 'specific video
characteristics' are or what is the manner in which they 'correspond' to the
current video frame" (Ans. 4); and (2) "the specific video characteristics
... [can be] at least video data size" (id.).
We agree with Appellants that Yu's cited disclosures do not describe
a summing of video characteristic values. See Br. 7. The cited sections of
Yu describe: i) buffer underflow and overflow problems if a picture is
decoded earlier or later than expected; and ii) a B-picture detection signal
representing whether a B-picture is included in input data. Yu col. 3, 11. 9-
12, col. 4, 11. 55-56. Although we agree with the Examiner that a video
characteristic can be a video data size, the cited sections of Yu do not
describe calculating an increase in frame buffer size (summing up the video
data size values to generate an accumulation value). Moreover, we observe
the rejection combines a description of a problem in the prior art (col. 3) and
an embodiment ofYu's invention (col. 4), while anticipation requires a
reference disclose all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same
4
Appeal2015-005224
Application 13/071,526
way as recited in the claim. See 1Vet kl oneyin, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545
F.3d 1359, 1371.
Because we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not
established Yu discloses the disputed limitation, we do not sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-12, and 31.
ISSUE 2: ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF
CLAIMS 13-15, 17-25, AND 32
We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred in
finding Yu discloses "indication data is generated according to a bitstream
length of the current video frame," as required by independent claim 13, its
dependent claims 14, 15, and 17-25, and independent claim 32. See
Br. 7-8.
The Examiner finds: ( 1) the claim language wherein indicates a
preference, but does not require the claim to perform a step (Ans. 5); (2)
"[the c ]laim language ... does not require determining the exact length of
bitstream, [but] merely that indication data is related to data size of the
current frame" (id. at 6); and (2) "[u]nder the broadest reasonable
interpretation ... , bitstream length can be indicated by frame type such as I,
P, and B frame listed by decreasing frame data size" (id. (citing Spec. iJ 59)).
The Examiner further finds Yu discloses a "pie_ type" signal that is
generated according to the current frame's type (I, P, or B) and thus also
according to the frame's correspondent bitstream length (size). Ans. 6
(citing Yu col. 4, 11. 46, 55-56, and 63-65); see also Final Act. 13.
5
Appeal2015-005224
Application 13/071,526
Appellants argue:
Yu ... discloses the differences between the I-frames, P-frames
and B-frames. But neither of these frames can indicate any
length of bitstream. The terms "bitstream length" and "frame
type" have completely different meaning even under the broadest
interpretation for a person killed in the art.
Br. 8. Appellants further argue that because Yu does not disclose any length
of bitstream, Yu does not disclose the feature of Claim 13. Id.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established Yu
discloses the disputed limitation. Contrary to the Examiner's findings that
the wherein clause is merely an optional preference, the claim language
requires generation of the indication data according to a bitstream length of
the current video frame. Furthermore, Yu does not describe the pic_type
signal (equated by Examiner to be the indication data) is generated
according to a bitstream length of the current video frame, but rather
describes the pic_type signal represents a current picture type (I, P, and B).
See Yu col. 63-65. Nor does the cited section of Appellants' Specification
describe that the frame type indicates the bitstream length of the current
video frame, but instead merely describes the compressibility of the different
frame types. See Spec. ,-i 59.
For the reasons stated above, Appellants have persuaded us that the
Examiner has not established Yu discloses the disputed limitation on this
record. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
independent claim 13 and depending claims 13-15 and 17-25, and
independent claim 32.
6
Appeal2015-005224
Application 13/071,526
ISSUE 3: ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF
CLAIMS 26, 28, 30, AND 33
We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred in
finding Yu discloses "estimating a time period between [i] a video display
time point of a decoded video frame preceding the at least one first decoded
video frame and [ii] a video display time point of a second decoded video
frame corresponding to the second frame" (numerals added), as required by
independent claim 26, its dependent claims 28 and 30, and independent
claim 33.
The Examiner finds Yu discloses the disputed limitation by merely
re-synchronizing the decoding time stamp (DTS) of a received frame with
the system time clock (STC). Ans. 7-8 (citing Yu col. 3, 11. 25-32). In
support, the Examiner further finds: (i) "Appellant fails to define what
constitutes estimating" (Ans. 7); (ii) "[a] person of skill in the art would
have understood that the decoding time stamps and the system clock are
machine estimates of what the decoded timing should be based on the
received video" (id. at 7-8); and (iii) "[r]eciting [the estimate's] intended
targets or results does not define what constitutes the actual estimation
function, and does not differentiate the claim from Yu that reads on the
claimed timing targets and produces the same timing results" (id. at 8
(emphasis omitted).
Appellants argue:
The synchronization method of Yu restores a decoding time of
the picture, and this decoding time of the picture is determined
according to the comparison result of a decoding time stamp ( dts)
value of an input picture with a system time clock (STC) count
value and the picture type of the picture. No time period is
estimated in Yu. Also, as Yu utilizes a system time clock count
7
Appeal2015-005224
Application 13/071,526
value to compare with a decoding time stamp, no time period is
needed to be estimated. Therefore, Yu fails to disclose the
claimed limitation.
Br. 8-9.
We agree that Yu's cited disclosures describe only comparing of the
buffered frame's DTS with the STC (and, based on the comparison, either
delaying the frame's start of decoding to prevent buffer underflow or
skipping the frame's decoding to prevent buffer overflow). See Yu col. 3, 11.
25-61. Nothing therein discloses the recited details of claim 26's estimating
step.
Accordingly, because the Examiner has not established Yu discloses
the disputed limitation, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
independent claims 26, 28, 30, and 33.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 31-33 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 6-15, 17-
25, 26, 28, and 30-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Yu. 1
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1 Should there be further prosecution of this application, our decision does
not preclude the Examiner from relying on Yu, in combination with one or
more additional references, to enter new grounds of rejection for the claims.
8