Ex Parte Luo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

12733979 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121733,979 10/08/2010
24498 7590 08/31/2016
Robert D, Shedd, Patent Operations
THOMSON Licensing LLC
4 Research Way
3rd Floor
Princeton, NJ 08543
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jiancong Luo
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.
PU070239 4989
EXAMINER
LUO,KATEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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):
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 JIANCONG LUO and PENG YIN
Appeal2013-010172
Application 12/733,979
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2013-010172
Application 12/733,979
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-18. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. An apparatus, comprising:
an encoder for encoding multi-view video content by specifying
video usability information on at least one of an individual view
basis, an individual temporal level basis in a view, and an individual
operating point basis.
Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hannuksela et al. (US 2008/0175325
Al; published July 24, 2008) and Chen et al. ("View scalability information
SEI Message for MVC," Joint Video Team ISO/MPEG & ITU-T/SG 16
VCEG, no. JVT-W037, April, 2007, p. 1-9). 1
The Examiner rejected claims 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Hannuksela, Chen, and Gordon
(US 2006/0248516 Al; published Nov. 2, 2006). 2
1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-15. Except for our
ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein.
2 Our decision as to claim 1 is determinative as to the rejection of claims 16-
18. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not
discussed further herein.
2
Appeal2013-010172
Application 12/733,979
Appellants' Contentions3
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1
and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[T]he asserted combination of the patents must also teach or
suggest each and every claim feature. See In re Royka, 490
F.2d 981, 180 USPQ 580 (CCPA 1974) (emphasis added) (to
establish prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention, all the
claim features must be taught or suggested by the prior art).
App. Br. 11 and 19.
2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
It is respectfully asserted that none of the cited
references, either taken singly or in combination, teach or
suggest the following limitations recited in Claims 1-4 and 13
(with the following applicable to Claims 2-4 and 13 by virtue of
their respective dependencies from Claim 1 ): "an encoder for
encoding multi-view video content by specifying video
usability information on at least one of an individual view basis,
an individual temporal level basis in a view; and an individual
operating point basis."
App. Br. 13.
We [the Appellants] respectfully disagree with the Examiner's
reading of Hannuksela.
For example, while Claims 1-15 recite, inter alia, "multi-
view video content", Hannuksela in contrast discloses scalable
video coding (SVC). We note that element 206 in Figure 2 is
the only element in any of the Figures of Hannuksela
identifying an encoder type, and is labeled and described as
"scalable data encoder 206" (emphasis added).
Thus, while the pending claims are directed to multi-view
video coding (MVC) and explicitly recite "multi-view video
content", Hannuksela is in contrast directed to scalable video
3 These contentions are determinative as to the rejections on appeal.
Therefore, Appellants' other contentions are not discussed herein.
3
Appeal2013-010172
Application 12/733,979
coding (SVC). As is known to one of ordinary skill in the art,
SVC is quite different from MVC.
Thus, given such fundamental differences between SVC
and MVC, the teachings of Hannuksela regarding SVC would
not be readily applied to MVC by one of ordinary skill in the
art.
App. Br. 14--15.
3. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[S]ince the entire disclosure of Hannuksela mentions "video
usability information" only once in paragraph [0011], and since
Hannuksela is essentially directed to SVC showing only a SVC
encoder (encoder 206 in Fig. 2 of Hannuksela), Hannuksela
essentially teaches the use of video usability information in
SVC, thus essentially teaching away from the explicit
limitations recited in Claims 1-15.
App. Br. 16.
4. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[R]egarding Hannuksela, we note the Examiner's ADMISSION
as follows, as set forth on page 3 of the pending Office Action:
"Hannuksela et al. does NOT explicitly disclose the following
claim limitations: Information selected from at least one of: an
individual view basis, an individual temporal level basis in a
view, and an individual operating point basis" (emphasis
added).
App. Br. 16.
5. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[R]egarding Chen, the same is explicitly directed to SEI
messages (Chen, Title, "view [sic] scalability information SEI
message for MVC") (emphasis added). However, as is known
4
Appeal2013-010172
Application 12/733,979
to those of ordinary skill in the art, an SEJ message is not video
usability information or a means to convey video usability
information. For example, SEI messages are treated differently
by the decoder as compared to video usability information and
involve different syntaxes than video usability information.
Thus, in this regard, Chen actually teaches away from the
explicit limitations recited in Claims 1-15. To that end, we
point to the above language reproduced from MPEP
§2141.02.VI directed to a teaching away reference.
App. Br. 17, emphasis added.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments (Appeal Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
As to Appellants' above contention 1; we disagree. Appellants cite to
the venerable Royka decision by the Court of Appeals without
acknowledging that this holding was modified by the Supreme Court's
holding inKSRint'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Appellants'
argument fails because it does not account for the impact of the Court's KSR
decision, in which the Court repudiated any requirement for such a "teaching
or suggestion" to show obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415 ("We begin by
rejecting the rigid approach of the Court of Appeals."). Rather, the
requirement is only that the Examiner show "the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains." KSR,
550 U.S. at 406 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103) (emphasis added); id. at 418
5
Appeal2013-010172
Application 12/733,979
("[T]he analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific
subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ.").
As to Appellants' above contentions 2 and 3, we disagree.
Appellants' argument focuses on the disclosed invention of Hannuksela and
overlooks that the Examiner relied on Hannuksela' s Background discussion
of the multi-view video (MVC) coding standard. Hunnuksela states that
MVC is an extension to the H.264/ A VC standard coding. i-f 8. Hannuksela
states that supplemental enhancement information (SEI) and video usability
information (VUI), are defined in H264/ A VC. i-f 11. Hannuksela states that
lightweight transcoding of SVC or MVC bitstreams to H.264/ A VC
bitstreams is possible, due to the fact that SVC and MVC are H.264/ A VC
extensions, and many of the coding tools, are similar. i-f 20. Contrary to
Appellants' arguments, the Examiner correctly found that Hannuksela
teaches an encoder for encoding multi-view video content (i.e. multiple
independent views in multi-view video coding) by specifying video usability
information at paragraphs 11 and 23. Final Act. 3.
As to Appellants' above contention 4, we disagree that Appellants
have shown the Examiner erred. First, Appellants misstated that the
Examiner has made an admission. An Examiner makes findings not
admissions. Second, Appellants do not contend that the Examiner's finding
was erroneous. Rather, Appellants agree with the Examiner's finding.
Therefore, we fail to see why Appellants have raised this issue.
6
Appeal2013-010172
Application 12/733,979
As to Appellants' above contention 5, we agree. Appellants argue
that Chen's view scalability information (supplemental enhancement
information (SEI) message) is not video usability information or a means to
convey video usability information. In the Answer, the Examiner responds:
Chen et al. disclose the SEI message is used to signal a number
of operation points including the operation points, temporal
level, frame rate information and initial parameter sets
information (Abstract) .... Since both SEI and VUI are extra
information to enhance the use of the video, it would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to modify the teachings of Hannuksela
with Chen to specify SEI and VUI for temporal level and
operation points, the motivation being to better encoding multi-
view video content.
Ans. 8-9, emphasis added. We agree with Appellants that, as set out in
Chen, the system is not "specifying video usability information on at least
one of an individual view basis, an individual temporal level basis in a view,
and an individual operating point basis" as claimed. Further, we conclude,
consistent with Appellants' argument, there is insufficient articulated
reasoning to support the Examiner's final conclusion that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants'
invention to modify Hannuksela to use Chen's SEI message for video
usability information (VUI) as claimed.
Additionally, the art of record shows that SEI and VUI are not
recognized by artisans generally as being interchangeable as would be
required to reach (without more) the Examiner's ultimate conclusion of
obviousness. See pages 40-41 of the Report on the Joint Video Team (JVT)
ofISO/IEC MPEG & ITU-T VCEG (ISO/IEC JTC I/SC 29IWG 11 and
ITU-T SG 16 Q.6) 23nd Meeting: San Jose, CA, USA, April 21-27, 2007.
7
Appeal2013-010172
Application 12/733,979
Specifically, pages 40-41 at JVT-W051 (including inventors/authors of
Hunnuksela and Chen) and JVT-W064 (including Appellants of this appeal)
document an exchange there between on the concept of putting VUI
bitstream restriction in VUI versus SEI as to Scalable Video Coding (SVC).
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-18 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) On this record, these claims have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-18 are reversed.
REVERSED
8