Ex Parte Melnyk et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2017

12751951 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 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.
12/751,951 03/31/2010 Miguel Melnyk 09266.0029-00000 1573
109619 7590 02/27/2017
Citrix Systems, Inc./Finnegan
901 New York Avenue
NW
Washington, DC 20001
EXAMINER
SOSANYA, OBAFEMI OLUDAYO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2017 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):
regional-desk @ finnegan. com
Cindy. B aglietto @ finnegan. com
Sherbonne'.Barnes-Anderson@finnegan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIGUEL MELNYK, ANDREW PENNER, and
JEREMY TIDEMANN
Appeal 2016-003754
Application 12/751,951
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOHN R. KENNY, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from rejections of claims
1—29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-003754
Application 12/751,951
CLAIMED INVENTION
According to Appellants, their invention relates to methods and
systems for quality-aware video optimization. Spec. 116. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving an encoded video frame;
decompressing the received encoded video frame;
extracting a first quantization parameter (QP) from the
decompressed video frame, wherein the first QP corresponds to
quantization settings originally used for compressing the
encoded video frame;
acquiring a delta QP based on the first QP;
acquiring a second QP based on the delta QP and the first
QP, wherein the second QP corresponds to quantization settings
for compressing the decompressed video frame;
compressing the decompressed video frame based on the
second QP; and
providing the compressed video frame.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—4, 7—15, and 17—29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by Ezure. Final Act. 3.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ezure. Final Act. 19.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Ezure and Chen. Final Act. 21.
REFERENCES
Wang
Chen
Ezure
US 2005/0220188 A1 Oct. 6, 2005
US 2005/0232354 A1 Oct. 20, 2005
US 2010/0166060 A1 July 1, 2010
2
Appeal 2016-003754
Application 12/751,951
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Ezure does not disclose “a computer-
implemented method comprising . . . acquiring a delta QP based on [a] first
QP” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 11, 15, 24, 28, and
29. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2. According to Appellants, the Examiner finds
scaler value 126 and qs 120 in Figure 1 of Ezure to be the recited delta QP
and first QP, respectively. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2. Ezure Figure 1 is
shown below:
100
FIG. 1
Figure 1 of Ezure shows transcoder 100, which includes picture level
controller 104 producing quantizer scaling value 126. Ezure 131.
3
Appeal 2016-003754
Application 12/751,951
Appellants argue that scaling value 126 is based on statistics, not qs
120, and, therefore, Ezure does not disclose the disputed limitation. App.
Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 2. We are not persuaded by that argument because it
does not address the Examiner’s actual rejection, where the Examiner finds
that the recited delta QP in Ezure is the difference between q 118 and qs 120.
Ans. 24.1 With the Examiner’s mapping, delta QP is based on the first QP
(qs 120). In particular, q 118 is obtained by multiplying scalar 126 by qs
120. Therefore, delta QP (q 118—qs 120) depends on qs 120 in accordance
with the disputed limitation. For example, if scalar 126 is 2 and qs 120 is 1,
delta QP is 1 (i.e., 2-1). With the same scalar, if qs 120 is 2, delta QP is 3
(i.e., 4-1). Appellants’ arguments are directed to distinguishing the claimed
delta QP from Ezure’s scaling value 126 rather than from the “change
between the initial/starting value . . . and the fmal/ending value” in Ezure.
Ans. 24. Because Appellants’ arguments are not responsive to the
Examiner’s findings, Appellants arguments are unpersuasive. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 1, and claims
2—4, 7—15, and 17—29, which are not argued separately. Similarly, we
sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 5, 6, and 16,
which are also not argue separately. App. Br. 13—14.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1—29.
1 The Examiner filed a first Answer on May 22, 2014 and second Answer on
June 18, 2014. In this opinion, we cite to the first Answer, which Appellants
address in their Reply Brief. Reply Br. 1. The second Answer includes a
paragraph regarding the appeal forwarding fee, which the first Answer does
not include. See June 18, 2014 Answer 25.
4
Appeal 2016-003754
Application 12/751,951
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
5