Ex Parte Samuelsson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2017

13704227 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 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.
4015-8363/P35412-US2 7413
EXAMINER
LE, PETER D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/704,227 12/13/2012
24112 7590 04/27/2017
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
Jonatan Samuelsson
04/27/2017 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 JONATAN SAMUELS SON and RICKARD SJOBERG
Appeal 2016-008566
Application 13/704,227
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
1 Appellants identify Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson as the real party
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-008566
Application 13/704,227
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 33—64. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary claims 33, 38, 63, and 64 under appeal read as follows
(emphasis added):
33. A method of encoding a representation of a current
picture of a video stream of multiple pictures using reference
pictures, comprising:
encoding a one-bit flag associated with a
reference picture in a buffer description for the current
picture, wherein the one-bit flag is set to explicitly
indicate to a decoder whether or not the reference
picture should be included in a list of reference pictures
indicating which pictures that can be used for references
when decoding the current picture.
38. The method according to claim 33, wherein the
one-bit flag is encoded in a slice header.
63. An encoder for encoding a representation of a
current picture of a video stream of multiple pictures using
reference pictures, wherein the encoder is configured to
encode a one-bit flag associated with a reference picture in a
buffer description for the current picture, the encoder comprises
a processor configured to set a one-bit flag according to a
comparison between the layer identity of each reference
picture and the layer identity of the current picture such that
the flag indicates that a reference picture is to be included in
the reference picture list if the layer identity of that reference
picture is equal to or lower than the layer identity of the
2
Appeal 2016-008566
Application 13/704,227
current picture, and such that the flag indicates that the
reference picture is excluded from the reference picture list if
the layer identity of the reference picture is higher than the
layer identity of the current picture.
64. A decoder for decoding a representation of a
current picture of a video stream of multiple pictures using
reference pictures, wherein the decoder is configured to
decode a one-bit flag associated with a reference picture in a
buffer description for the current picture, the decoder comprises
a processor configured to check the one-bit flag for each
reference picture in the buffer description where the
corresponding reference picture in a decoded picture buffer is
missing and if the one-bit flag is indicating that the reference
picture is included in the reference picture list, the processor
is configured to conclude that the picture is unintentionally
lost.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejected claims 33, 38, 39, 41—47, 52, 53, and 56—61
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ian
E. Richardson, The H.264 Advanced Video Compression Standard (Wiley
Publishing Inc., 2nd ed. 2010) (2003) (herein “Richardson”), and ISO/IEC
14496-10: (2010), “Information technology — Coding of audio-video objects
— Part 10: Advanced Video Coding (AVC)” (herein “ISO”).2,3
2 The header of the rejection inadvertently omits claims 59—61.
3 The patentability of claims 34—37, 39, 40, 42-44, 46, 48—51, 53—55, 57—59,
61, and 62 is not separately argued from that of independent claims 33,41,
47, and 56. See App. Br. 26. Further, the patentability of independent
claims 41, 47, and 56 is not separately argued from that of independent
claim 33. See App. Br. 16. Even further, the patentability of claims 45, 52,
and 60 is not separately argued from that of claim 38. See App. Br. 25—26.
3
Appeal 2016-008566
Application 13/704,227
2. The Examiner rejected claims 34—36, 40, 48—50, and 54 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Richardson, ISO, and Ying et al., (US 2009/0003445 Al; published Jan. 1,
2009).
3. The Examiner rejected claims 37 and 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Richardson, ISO, Ying, and
Kato (US 2007/0268971 Al; published Nov. 22, 2007).
4. The Examiner rejected claims 55 and 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Richardson, ISO, and
Budagavi (US 2011/0170594 Al; published July 14, 2011).
5. The Examiner rejected claim 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Richardson, ISO, Ying, and Ying
(US 2009/0067496 Al; published Mar. 12, 2009) (herein “Ying2”).
6. The Examiner rejected claim 64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Richardson, ISO, and Kato.
Appellants ’ Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 33
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[The cited art] fails to teach or suggest “encoding a one-bit flag
associated with a reference picture in a buffer description for
the current picture ... set to explicitly indicate to a decoder
whether or not the reference picture should be included in a list
of reference pictures that can be used for references when
decoding the current picture, ” as recited by claim 33.
Thus, except for our ultimate decision, claims 34—37, 39, 40, 42-44, 46, 48—
51, 53—55, 57—59, 61, and 62 are not discussed further herein.
4
Appeal 2016-008566
Application 13/704,227
[As shown in Richardson], it is clear that the H.264 decoder is
predicting whether reference pictures should be added to
reference picture lists based on picture ordering and current
picture type. Accordingly, there is no explicit indication to the
decoder of whether or not a reference picture should be
included in a reference picture list. . . . Further, even if
(arguendo) Richardson did suggest to one of ordinary skill to
encode an explicit indication, there is no teaching or suggestion
to do so in any one-bit flag.
ISO is explicit that there are three marking states that control
whether, and how, a reference picture is added to a reference
picture list. One of three states cannot be signaled using a one-
bit flag.
[The Examiner] provides no explanation why it would be
obvious to encode this particular one-bit flag to make this
particular explicit indication of whether or not a reference picture
should be included in a reference picture list. Rather, according
to the Examiner’s rationale, anything that can be represented
in binary fashion is obvious to encode, regardless of whether
one of ordinary skill at the time would have recognized any
reason or benefit within the context of the cited art for doing
so. Such arguments regard fail to state a prima facie case as a
matter of law.
App. Br. 7—15, Appellants’ emphasis and citations omitted, panel’s emphasis
added.
2. In the Reply Brief, further as to above contention 1, Appellants also
contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 33 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
As shown in [ISO], nal_ref_idc is of type u(2). Further, as stated
5
Appeal 2016-008566
Application 13/704,227
in [ISO], a type expressed in the format u(n) is an “unsigned
integer using n bits.” Accordingly, nal_ref_idc is a two-bit
unsigned integer. It is not reasonable to construe two-bits as
teaching, or in any way suggesting, the “one-bit flag” as
claimed.
Reply Br. 2, Appellants’ emphasis and citations omitted, panel’s emphasis
added.
3. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[T]he cited art fails to teach or suggest an encoder that is
configured to encode a one-bit flag “according to a comparison
between the layer identity of each reference picture and the
layer identity of the current picture,” that “indicates that a
reference picture is to be included in the reference picture list
if the layer identity of that reference picture is equal to or lower
than the layer identity of the current picture,” and that
“indicates that the reference picture is excluded from the
reference picture list if the layer identity of the reference
picture is higher than the layer identity of the current picture, ”
as recited in claim 63.
As discussed above, Richardson does not teach or suggest
encoding any one-bit flag indicating that a reference picture is to
be included in any reference picture list. Accordingly,
Richardson necessarily cannot teach or suggest such a flag that
indicates inclusion/noninclusion based on the layer
relationship between the current picture and a reference
picture.
[Ying] does not cure this defect. [Ying] is directed to a [solution
that encodes a flag to eliminate the transmission of particular
Reference Picture List Reordering (RPLR) commands.] ... A
solution that encodes a flag to eliminate transmission of
particular RPLR commands does not teach or suggest to
encode a one-bit flag [based on the layer relationship between
the current picture and a reference picture] as recited in claim
63.
6
Appeal 2016-008566
Application 13/704,227
[Ying2] fails to cure the defects of Richardson and [Ying],
[Ying2] “provides a way to construct reference lists for interlace
video coding that can be used as default reference lists” [using a
process involving, in addition to examining the temporal layer of
the available reference frames, considering whether or not a field
on the same temporal layer is a counterpart.] This process
involves examining a plurality of different factors encoded in
the bitstream, and is not encoded into any one-bit flag.
App. Br. 17—21, Appellants’ emphasis and citations omitted, panel’s
emphasis added.
4. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[Tjhe cited art fails to teach or suggest that a “decoder is
configured to .. . check the one-bit flag for each reference
picture in the buffer description where the corresponding
reference picture in a decoded picture buffer is missing and if
the one-bit flag is indicating that the reference picture is
included in the reference picture list, the processor is
configured to conclude that the picture is unintentionally lost, ”
as recited in claim 64.
As discussed above, Richardson fails to teach or suggest any one-
bit flag “indicating that the reference picture is included in the
reference picture list,” much less the one-bit flag for each
reference picture in the buffer description. . . . Richardson
further fails to teach that any reference picture is missing and
checking this one-bit flag to conclude that the picture is
unintentionally lost.
Kato does not cure these defects. [Kato] does not discuss
reference picture lists in any respect. Accordingly, Kato
necessarily does not teach that any “one-bit flag is indicating
that the reference picture is included in the reference picture
list,” as recited in claim 64. Given that such a one-bit flag is
taught by neither Richardson nor Kato, such a flag necessarily
7
Appeal 2016-008566
Application 13/704,227
is not taught or suggested to be checked, nor any conclusions
drawn therefrom (such as that a missing reference picture was
unintentionally lost), as recited in claim 64. In fact, Kato also
does not discuss lost pictures in any respect, much less pictures
that have been lost unintentionally.
App. Br. 22—23, Appellants’ emphasis omitted, panel’s emphasis added.
5. In the Reply Brief, further as to above contention 4, Appellants also
contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 64 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Respectfully, [the Examiner’s construction of Kato’s
prohibited picture as unintentionally lost] is not reasonable, as
it construes the intentional encoding of the Kato video stream
and corresponding operation the Kato decoder as somehow
unintentional.
Reply Br. 3, Appellants’ emphasis and citations omitted, panel’s emphasis
added.
6. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[Tjhe cited art fails to teach or suggest “wherein the one-bit
flag is .. . in a slice header,” as recited in claim 38[.] . . .
Richardson clearly does not teach or suggest to specifically
encode the claimed one-bit flag in the slice header given that
the Examiner has previously admitted that "Richardson does
not disclose . . . encoding [the] one-bit flag" in any respect in
the rejection of claim 33. Further, ISO does not cure this defect,
nor does the Examiner so allege.
App. Br. 25—26, Appellants’ emphasis and citations omitted, panel’s
emphasis added.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 33, 38, 63, and 64 as being
8
Appeal 2016-008566
Application 13/704,227
obvious?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The mere existence of differences between the prior art and the claim
does not establish non-obviousness. See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219,
230 (1976). Instead, the relevant question is “whether the difference
between the prior art and the subject matter in question is a [difference]
sufficient to render the claimed subject matter unobvious to one skilled in
the applicable art.” Dann, 425 U.S. at 228 (internal quotations and citations
omitted). Indeed, the Supreme Court made clear that when considering
obviousness, “the 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.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Further, “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that
is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the
field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” Id. at
416, citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50—51 (1966).
ANALYSIS
As to Appellants’ above contentions 1 and 2, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. We agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Richardson and ISO teaches or suggests the following elements of
independent claim 33:
• “a reference picture in a buffer description for [a] current
picture” (Richardson at 101, 104 (describing pictures
9
Appeal 2016-008566
Application 13/704,227
stored in a decoded picture buffer (DPB) used for inter
prediction of further coded pictures));
• “a list of reference pictures indicating which pictures that
can be used for references when decoding the current
picture” (Richardson at 104 (describing reference order of
pictures is determined by one or two ordered lists of
available decoded pictures, list(0) and list(l))); and
• (c) an indication that “explicitly indicate[s] . . . whether or
not the reference picture should be included in [the] list of
reference pictures,” (Richardson at 105 (describing
whether pictures in an display order example are reference
pictures (“Used for Reference”)); ISO at 48 (describing
the variable nal_ref_idc as not equal to 0 when the unit
contains a reference picture and equal to 0 when the unit
contains a non-reference picture)).4
See Final Act. 3^4; see also Ans. 31—32.
While the combination of Richardson and ISO fails to teach explicitly
encoding the aforementioned indication within a one-bit flag, the
combination of Richardson and ISO explicitly teaches encoding data, and
also explicitly teaches a one-bit flag. See Richardson at 25 (describing an
encoder that encodes source data into a compressed form occupying a
reduced number of bits); see also ISO at 31 (describing the variable
constraint_setO_flag as a one-bit flag (i.e., u(l))). Thus, consistent with
KSR, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the encoding standard taught by
Richardson so that an indication of whether the reference picture should be
included in the list of reference pictures (i.e., “Use for Reference” value) is
4 Although we agree with Appellants’ argument that ISO describes the
variable nal_ref_idc as a two-bit unsigned integer, ISO also describes other
examples of one-bit flags. See, e.g., ISO at 31 (describing the variable
constraint_setO_flag as a one-bit flag (i.e., u(l))).
10
Appeal 2016-008566
Application 13/704,227
encoded within a one-bit flag as taught by ISO. Such a combination of
Richardson and ISO would have been obvious because the combination
would do no more than yield a predictable result of the indication being
encoded within a one-bit flag stored within the encoded data.
As to Appellants’ above contention 3, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Ying
and Ying2 teaches or suggests the following elements of independent claim
63:
• “a comparison between the layer identity of each reference
picture and the layer identity of the current picture” (Ying2
153 (describing a comparison between a temporal level of
a bottom field of a picture and a temporal level of a top
field of a picture));
• “such that the flag indicates that a reference picture is to
be included in the reference picture list if the layer identity
of that reference picture is equal to or lower than the layer
identity of the current picture” (Ying H 7, 13, 32
(describing pictures of equal or lower temporal level as
possible references)); and
• “such that the flag indicates that the reference picture is
excluded from the reference picture list if the layer identity
of the reference picture is higher than the layer identity of
the current picture” (Ying || 7, 13, 32 (describing pictures
of equal or lower temporal level as possible references)).
See Final Act. 23—25; see also Ans. 33—34. Similar to our discussion above,
while the combination of Richardson, ISO, Ying, and Ying2 fails to teach
explicitly encoding a one-bit flag, the combination of Richardson and ISO
explicitly teaches encoding data, and also explicitly teaches a one-bit flag.
Thus, consistent with KSR, we agree with the Examiner that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of
Richardson, ISO, Ying, and Ying2 to encode the one-bit flag taught by ISO
11
Appeal 2016-008566
Application 13/704,227
based on a comparison between the layer identify of each reference picture
and the layer identity of the current picture, as taught by the combination of
Ying and Ying2. Such a combination of Richardson, ISO, Ying, and Ying2
would have been obvious because the combination would do no more than
yield a predictable result of the one-bit flag being encoded and stored within
the encoded data.
As to Appellants’ above contentions 4 and 5, we are persuaded the
Examiner erred. We agree with Appellants that Kato merely teaches
prohibited predictions of frames, where it is prohibited that a picture later
than an Instantaneous Decoder Refresh (IDR) picture in a decoding order is
predicted from a picture earlier than the IDR picture in the decoding order.
See Kato ]Hf 65, 67—68. Such a teaching fails to teach or suggest “check the
one-bit flag for each reference picture in the buffer description where the
corresponding reference picture in a decoded picture buffer is missing and if
the one-bit flag is indicating that the reference picture is included in the
reference picture list, the processor is configured to conclude that the picture
is unintentionally lost,” as recited in claim 64.5 Further, none of the other
cited references cure Kato’s deficiencies. Thus, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 64.
As to Appellants’ above contention 6, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. As described above, we agree with the Examiner that
Richardson teaches an indication that “explicitly indicate[s] . . . whether or
not the reference picture should be included in [the] list of reference
5 We construe “unintentionally lost” as “lost,” because the term
“unintentionally” is subjective, and the claim does not define what
constitutes an unintentional loss of a picture as compared to an intentional
loss of a picture.
12
Appeal 2016-008566
Application 13/704,227
pictures,” as recited in independent claim 33. We further agree with the
Examiner that Richardson teaches encoding data within a slice header. See
Final Act. 4—5; see also Richardson at 117—119 (describing format of a slice
header). Thus, consistent with KSR, we agree with the Examiner that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
encoding standard as taught by Richardson so that an indication of whether
the reference picture should be included in the list of reference pictures (i.e.,
“Use for Reference” value) is contained within a one-bit flag as taught by
ISO, and the one-bit flag is encoded within the slice header, as taught by
Richardson. Such a combination of Richardson and ISO would have been
obvious because the combination would do no more than yield a predictable
result of the indication being encoded within a one-bit flag stored within a
slice header of the encoded data.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 33—63 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 64 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) Claims 33—63 are not patentable.
(4) On this record, claim 64 has not been shown to be unpatentable.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 33—63 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
13
Appeal 2016-008566
Application 13/704,227
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 64 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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-IN-PART
14