Ex Parte Rossholm et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 12, 2016

13201619 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2016)

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.
13/201,619 08/15/2011 Andreas Rossholm 9900-27943US1 1806
20792 7590 05/13/2016
MYERS BIGEL & SIBLEY, P.A.
PO BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
EXAMINER
ZHOU, ZHIHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/13/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANDREAS ROSSHOLM and MARTIN PETTERSSON

____________

Appeal 2014-008460
Application 13/201,619
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1‒20, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget
LM Ericsson. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2014-008460
Application 13/201,619

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ present application relates to processing an encoded bit
stream based on the complexity of the encoding. Spec. 1. Claims 1 and 6
are illustrative of the claimed invention and read as follows:
1. A method in a decoding device of adapting a decoding
subsystem, said method comprising the steps of:
receiving an encoded bit stream from a bit stream source;
extracting complexity related information from said
encoded bit stream, the complexity related information being
indicative of the complexity of the encoding of said bit stream
source;
comparing said extracted information to a set of pre-
defined complexity levels;
selecting at least one data setting on the basis of said
comparison; and
adapting said decoding sub-system in response to said
selected at least one data setting.

6. A method for use in determining a bit stream quality
score in a multimedia system, said method comprising the steps
of:
receiving an encoded bit stream from a bit stream source;
extracting complexity related information from said
encoded bit stream, said complexity related information being
indicative of the complexity of the encoding at said bit stream
source;
selecting at least one data setting for a bit stream quality
model in response to said extracted complexity related
information; and
calculating a bit stream quality score for said encoded bit
stream using said bit stream quality model and in response to
Appeal 2014-008460
Application 13/201,619

3
said selected at least one data setting.

The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1‒5 and 11‒14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Tan (US 6,542,549 B1; Apr. 1, 2003). See Ans. 2‒4.
Claims 6‒10, 15, 16, and 18‒20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wilson (WO 99/17552; Apr. 8, 1999) and
Choi (US 2004/0156438 A1; Aug. 12, 2004). See Ans. 4‒8.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wilson, Choi, and Tan. See Ans. 8.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 11
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Tan discloses
“selecting at least one data setting on the basis of said comparison,” where
“said comparison” refers to the preceding step, “comparing said extracted
information to a set of pre-defined complexity levels.” See App. Br. 10‒12,
Reply Br. 9‒11.
The Examiner finds Tan discloses extracting complexity information
from a bit stream and comparing the extracted information to pre-determined
models that are part of a complexity standard. Ans. 11 (citing Tan 7:41‒44,
9:33‒39, 9:50‒59). The Examiner finds Tan checks the bitstreams “so that
future compliant decoders can properly decode such bitstreams, i.e. . . .
‘selecting at least one data setting on the basis of said comparison.’” Ans.
11. The Examiner explains that Tan discloses selecting at least one data
setting by disclosing ensuring decoders are complaint to specifications of the
Appeal 2014-008460
Application 13/201,619

4
standard. Ans. 12. “Stated in another way, a check that is scheduled to be
performed on the queue as part of a model to be implemented for
verification purposes requires at least one data setting to be selected.” Ans.
12.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred because Tan does not disclose
selecting a data setting on the basis of the cited comparison as set forth in
claims 1 and 11. See App. Br. 12. On the record before us, Appellants have
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding Tan discloses the “selecting”
limitation. Tan discloses comparing extracted complexity information to the
standard specification to categorize the complexity of a macroblock in order
to verify the complexity does not exceed that supported by the decoder. Tan
9:48‒65. The Examiner has not cited evidence to support the finding that
the comparison of the extracted complexity information to the standard
specification is used as a basis for selecting a data setting as required by
claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1 and 11 or claims 2‒5 and 12‒14, dependent therefrom.2

Claims 6 and 15
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6 and 15
because the combination of Wilson and Choi does not teach or suggest
“extracting complexity related information from an encoded bit stream
received from a bit stream source, said complexity related information being
indicative of the complexity of the encoding at said bit stream source,” as

2 Because we are persuaded of error with regard to the identified issue,
which is dispositive of the rejection of claims 1 and 11, we do not reach the
additional issues raised by Appellants’ arguments related to claims 1 and 11
or claims 2‒5 and 12‒14 dependent therefrom.
Appeal 2014-008460
Application 13/201,619

5
recited in claims 6 and 15. See App. Br. 13‒15. In particular, Appellants
argue Wilson does not teach or suggest extracting complexity information
related to the encoding of the bit stream, instead teaching extracting
complexity information indicative of the decoding complexity. App. Br. 14‒
15.
As acknowledged by Appellants, Wilson teaches extracting
complexity information to determine the decoding complexity of the coded
bit stream to determine the required decoder resources and requirements.
App. Br. 15. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that this teaching
corresponds to “complexity related information being indicative of the
complexity of the encoding at said bit stream source.” Ans. 5, 13. Wilson’s
decoding complexity information reflects the encoding complexity because
decoding unwinds the encoding performed on raw data. See Wilson 4:8‒19;
see also Choi Fig. 6, Fig. 7, ¶¶ 46‒54. Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner that the decoding complexity information extracted in Wilson is
“indicative of the complexity of the encoding at said bit stream source,” as
recited in claim 6.
Appellants further argue the combination of Wilson and Choi fails to
teach or suggest “calculating a bit stream quality score.” See App. Br. 15‒
17. In particular, Appellants argue the Examiner concedes Wilson does not
teach this limitation, instead relying on Choi. App. Br. 15 (citing Final Act.
5). Appellants argue Choi “is wholly silent regarding calculation of a
bitstream quality score,” instead teaching determining a frame complexity
indicator based on the number of bits and the quantization. App. Br. 16.
The Examiner responds that Choi teaches calculating a number of bits
to be allocated to a picture and varying that number based on the complexity
Appeal 2014-008460
Application 13/201,619

6
of the picture. Ans. 14. The Examiner reasons that because a bit stream
quality score can be interpreted simply as a number, calculating a number of
bits to be allocated to a picture based on a determined complexity suggests
calculating a bit stream quality score. Id.
Appellants reply that even if the number of bits allocated to a bit
stream were construed as a bit stream quality score, Choi fails to teach
calculating a bit stream quality score “in response to said selected at least
one data setting.” Reply Br. 12.
The Board “determines the scope of claims in patent applications not
solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their
broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants’ Specification does not
define the term “bit stream quality score.” The term is used throughout the
Specification to refer to a score that is calculated using various information
extracted from the bit stream. See, e.g., Spec. 2, 4‒7, 9‒10. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, that Choi teaches calculating the number of bits to
allocate to a bit stream based on complexity information extracted from the
bit stream. We determine the broadest reasonable interpretation of “bit
stream quality score” in light of the Specification includes this calculated
number of bits because the number of bits allocated to a bit stream is
indicative of the amount of data in the bit stream, which is one possible
measure of bit stream quality. Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded
us the Examiner erred in finding Choi teaches the “calculating” limitation.
Appeal 2014-008460
Application 13/201,619

7
Finally, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Wilson and Choi
because the combination would render the references inoperable. See App.
Br. 17‒19, Reply Br. 12‒13. In particular, Appellants argue Choi and
Wilson behave in a manner opposite to one another because Wilson
determines the complexity of a coded bit stream before the stream is
decoded while Choi determines the complexity of a bit stream using decoded
information (i.e., after the stream has been decoded). App. Br. 17.
Appellants argue an ordinarily skilled artisan would not combine Wilson and
Choi because it would be “non-sensible” to determine the complexity of the
bit stream both before decoding (as in Wilson) and after decoding (as in
Choi). App. Br. 18.
The combination proposed by the Examiner is to “modify Wilson’s
apparatus and method for extracting measures of a bitstream’s processing
requirements for decoding with Choi’s method and apparatus for picture
complexity estimation and target bit-allocation for controlling bit-rate during
transcoding.” Ans. 15, Final Act. 5. Appellants’ argument, which is
essentially that the teachings of Choi cannot be bodily incorporated into the
teachings of Wilson, is not persuasive because the proposed combination is
not to bodily incorporate Choi’s teachings into Wilson (or vice versa). See
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)(“The test for obviousness is
not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test
is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.”); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA
Appeal 2014-008460
Application 13/201,619

8
1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to
combine their specific structures.”).
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in
finding an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine
the teachings of Wilson and Choi.

Claim 7
Claim 7 recites:
A method according to claim 6, wherein said extracting
step further comprises:
extracting additional quality related information from
said bit stream, and wherein said selecting step further
comprises:
selecting at least one data setting on the basis of said
extracted complexity related information in combination with
said additional quality related information.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 as
unpatentable over the combination of Wilson and Choi. See App. Br. 22. In
particular, Appellants argue Wilson teaches elements in the bit stream
indicate decoding computation requirements and predicting processing
requirements for decoding the bit stream. Id. Appellants argue Wilson is
silent regarding complexity parameters. App. Br. 22.
Appellants’ argument is nothing more than a recitation of Wilson’s
teachings and a conclusory statement that Wilson does not teach the
limitations of claim 7. As stated by the Federal Circuit, Rule 41.37
“require[s] more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art.” In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357
Appeal 2014-008460
Application 13/201,619

9
(Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7.
In any event, we agree with and adopt the findings of the Examiner
that Wilson teaches extracting horizontal size value, vertical size value,
frame rate code, and picture coding type from the bit stream, and these
parameters correspond to the “quality related information” and “complexity
related information” required by claim 7. See Ans. 20 (citing Wilson 12:19‒
13:16).

Claim 8
Claim 8 recites “A method according to claim 6, wherein said
extracting step further comprises a step of retrieving, from said encoded bit
stream, one or more complexity related parameters indicative of macro block
partition size, motion vector resolution, skipped macro blocks, or number of
used reference pictures of at least a part of said encoded bit stream.”
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8 as
unpatentable over the combination of Wilson and Choi. See App. Br. 23. In
particular, Appellants argue Wilson teaches elements in the bit stream
indicate decoding computation requirements. Id. Appellants argue Wilson
is silent regarding complexity related parameters such as macro block
partition size, motion vector resolution, skipped macro blocks, and number
of used reference pictures of the bit stream. Id.
Appellants’ argument is nothing more than a recitation of Wilson’s
teachings and a conclusory statement that Wilson does not teach the
limitations of claim 8. As noted above, Rule 41.37 requires a more
Appeal 2014-008460
Application 13/201,619

10
substantive argument. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Accordingly,
Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8.
Further, we agree with and adopt the findings of the Examiner that
Wilson teaches horizontal size and vertical size information extracted from
the bit stream, which can be processed to determine the number of bi-
directionally predicted macroblocks coded in a picture (the claimed “macro
block partition size”). Ans. 20 (citing Wilson 12:21‒24, 13:10‒16).

CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellants
have persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Therefore,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, independent claim 11, which
recites similar limitations, and claims 2‒5 and 12‒14 dependent therefrom.
See App. Br. 4‒13.
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 6. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wilson and Choi. We also sustain the
rejection of independent claim 15 and dependent claims 10 and 16‒20,
which were not argued separately. See App. Br. 19‒24.
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 7. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wilson and Choi.
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner erred in rejecting
Appeal 2014-008460
Application 13/201,619

11
claim 8. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 8 and its dependent
claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wilson and Choi.

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1‒5 and 11‒14.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6‒10 and 15‒20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART