Ex Parte Misra et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2018

15040718 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/040,718 02/10/2016
143308 7590 06/29/2018
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (Dolby)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
KiranMisra
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.
40305-0016004 6873
EXAMINER
LIU,LI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2666
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2018 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
patents@dolby.com
mguo@dolby.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KIRAN MISRA, SACHIN G. DESHPANDE, and
CHRISTOPHER A. SEGALL 1
Appeal 2017-011861
Application 15/040, 718
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 6 and 10. This appeal is related to Appeal 2018-002089
(App. No. 14/305,787). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the applicant, Dolby International AB, which the Appeal
Brief identifies as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-011861
Application 15/040,718
Invention
Appellant discloses a method for tracking a reference picture on an
electronic device. Abstract.
Representative Claim
6. An apparatus comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream
comprising data representative of an image,
wherein the data representative of the image comprises a
wrap indicator,
wherein the wrap indicator is used to track a previously
decoded reference picture in a decoded picture buffer
(DPB) with reduced overhead referencing,
wherein the reduced overhead referencing is performed
based on a designated picture,
wherein the wrap indicator indicates a transition between
two sets of pictures,
wherein a current picture is encoded based on the
previously decoded reference picture; and
a processor configured to signal the bitstream comprising the
data representative of the image to a decoder.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 10 on grounds of non-statutory
obviousness-type double-patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of
Misra et al. (US 8,768,079 B2; issued July 1, 2014) ("Misra '079") and
Hannuksela (US 7,403,660 B2; issued July 22, 2008). Final Act. 5.
The Examiner provisionally rejects claims 6 and 10 on grounds of
non-statutory obviousness-type double-patenting as being unpatentable over
Misra et al. (co-pending App. No. 14/305,787; filed June 16, 2014) ("Misra
'787"). Final Act. 6.
2
Appeal 2017-011861
Application 15/040,718
The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 10 on grounds of non-statutory
obviousness-type double-patenting as being unpatentable over Misra et al.
(US 8,787,688 B2; issued July 22, 2014) ("Misra '688"). Final Act. 6.
The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Hannuksela. Final Act. 7.
UNDISPUTED REJECTIONS
Appellant does not challenge the Examiner's provisional and non-
provisional non-statutory obviousness-type double-patenting rejections. As
such, we summarily affirm these rejections.
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
In rejecting claim 6 as being anticipated, the Examiner concludes that
the information stored on the recited computer-readable medium represents
non-functional descriptive material that fails to "patentably distinguish the
medium from a prior art medium capable of embodying the same content."
Final Act. 7.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the claimed
features-specifically the wrap indicator data of the stored bitstream-
perform "some function with respect to the ... decoder to which the
bitstream is signaled." App. Br. 8 (emphasis omitted). In particular,
Appellant argues "inclusion of the wrap indicator in the bitstream allows the
overhead associated with tracking reference pictures to be reduced." Id. at 9
( citing Spec. ,r 33). Appellant submits claim 6 thus establishes "a functional
relationship ... between the bitstream ... and the intended computer
system, i.e., the decoder." App. Br. 9. Therefore, Appellant contends the
claimed wrap indicator is entitled patentable weight. Id.; see also Reply Br.
2-3.
3
Appeal 2017-011861
Application 15/040,718
ANALYSIS
Claimed descriptive material is not entitled patentable weight absent a
new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material
and the underlying device or substrate. See Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d
1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008) (precedential); see also In re Ngai, 367 F.3d
1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Furthermore, an "intended use or purpose
usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually
do no more than define a context in which the invention operates."
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d
1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Appellant argues that the claimed wrap indicator has a functional
relationship with an "intended computer system." App. Br. 9. However,
claim 6 does not positively recite the computer system as part of the claimed
apparatus. Nor does claim 6 positively recite using the wrap indicator.
Instead, claim 6 recites an intended use of the wrap indicator (i.e., tracking a
previously decoded reference picture used to encode a current picture) and a
benefit of this intended use (i.e., reduced overhead referencing).
Claim 6 does not recite the claimed apparatus using the wrap
indicator. Instead, the apparatus has "a processor configured to signal the
bitstream comprising the data representative of the image to a decoder." It is
the decoder that would use the wrap indicator as intended. See Spec. ,r 4 7
("decoder 102 may include a reference picture tracking module"). However,
the decoder is not recited as being part of the claimed apparatus. Thus, the
claimed apparatus does not use the wrap indicator in the intended manner,
nor does the claimed apparatus realize the benefit identified by such use.
4
Appeal 2017-011861
Application 15/040,718
Appellant argues, "like the data objects in Lowry, the wrap indicator
of the bitstream provides increased efficiency in computer operation, i.e., in
decoding encoded pictures, and should be given patentable weight." App.
Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 2. However, the claimed invention of Lowry
realized the increased computer efficiency by imparting "a physical
organization on the information stored in [the claimed] memory." In re
Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994). That is, the memory itself was
improved. Id. at 1584 ("[D]ata stored in accordance with the claimed data
structures [was] more easily accessed, stored, and erased"). The improved
functionality of the claimed memory in Lowry is what established the
functional relationship that gave the data structure patentable weight. Here,
neither the non-transitory computer-readable medium nor the processor
have improved functionality as a result of the claimed wrap indicator.
Rather, it is the decoder signaled by the processor-a decoder which is not
claimed as part of the apparatus-that has potentially improved
functionality.
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed wrap
indicator, lacking a functional relationship with the claimed apparatus, is not
entitled patentable weight. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 6, and claim 10, which is rejected for the
same reason (Final Act. 6) and which Appellant does not argue separately
(App. Br. 10).
5
Appeal 2017-011861
Application 15/040,718
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 6 and 10.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6