Ex Parte Sze et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2018

13593973 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/593,973 08/24/2012
23494 7590 03/21/2018
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
P 0 BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Vivienne Sze
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.
TI-71306 1011
EXAMINER
ZHOU, ZHIHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2018 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VIVIENNE SZE, WOO-SHIK KIM,
MADHUKAR BUDAGA VI, DO-KYOUNG KWON, and
MINHUAZHOU
Appeal2017-001829
Application 13/593,973
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
17-66. Claims 1-16 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
The claims are directed to sample adaptive offset (SAO) parameter
signaling. Claim 17, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
Appeal2017-001829
Application 13/593,973
17. A method for sample adaptive offset (SAO) filtering and
SAO parameter signaling, the method comprising:
determining sample adaptive offset (SAO) parameters for
a plurality of non-overlapping regions of a reconstructed picture
wherein the SAO parameters comprise an indicator of an SAO
filter type and at least one SAO offset,
applying SAO filtering to the plurality of non-overlapping
regions of the reconstructed picture according to the SAO
parameters; and
encoding the SAO parameters in a slice data portion of a
bit stream, wherein the SAO parameters for the associated
plurality of the non-overlapping regions and data for the
associated plurality of the non-overlapping regions are
interleaved in the slice data portion of the bit stream.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ye et al.
Fu et al. (Fu '353)
Francois et al.
Fu et al. (Fu '118)
US 2008/0013633 Al
US 2012/0294353 Al
US 2012/0327999 Al
US 2013/0259118 Al
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Jan. 17,2008
Nov. 22, 2012
Dec. 27, 2012
Oct. 3, 2013
Claims 17, 19-24, 26-34, 37-45, 47-52, 54-60, and 62-66 stand
rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fu
'353 in view of Francois.
2
Appeal2017-001829
Application 13/593,973
Claims 18, 25, 46, 53, and 61 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fu '353 in view of Francois and further
in view of Fu' 118.
Claims 35 and 36 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fu '353 in view of Francois and further in view of
Ye.
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 17 and 30, we find the claims
contain similar limitations and address independent claim 17 as the
illustrative claim.
With respect to illustrative independent claim 17, Appellants contend
that the sections of the Fu '353 reference relied upon by the Examiner
contain "no teaching of any arrangement of SAO parameters and LCU from
the encoder. In fact the sections cited by the Examiner simply described
how the SAO parameters are derived and are silent on any arrangement of
the SAO parameters." (App. Br. 26). Appellants further contend that Figure
8 of the Fu '353 reference "explicitly teaches placing the SAO parameters in
the slice header," and which is the same as what is shown in Figure 3 of the
instant application. (App. Br. 26-27). Appellants further contend "[b ]oth
Fu['353] and the HEVC draft standard in existence at the time both disclose
placing the SAO parameters in the slice header as described in the prior art
section of the instant application." (App. Br. 29).
Appellants further contend that the Francois reference "does not teach
or disclose SAO parameters for the associated plurality of non-overlapping
3
Appeal2017-001829
Application 13/593,973
regions and data for the associated plurality of non-overlapping regions are
interleaved in the slice data portion of the bit stream." (App. Br. 29).
In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner repeats the same
discussion regarding the Fu '353 reference from the statement in the
rejection (Final Act. 3) and the Examiner further maintains:
In other words, in LCU-based SAO, each LCU has its own
SAOP and SAOPl through SAOP15 are used by the fifteen
LCUs (LCUl through LCU15) respectively. Therefore, since
LCU' s are part of a slice, for any slice where there are LCU' s
with its own SAOP value, there will be SAO parameters,
corresponding to each of the LCU's with its own SAOP value,
interleaved in that slice data portion of the bit stream, as would
be known according to the HEVC standard. Signaling
information in a bitstream is done on an encoder side to be
communicated to the decoder side. As such, the SAO parameter
information are interleaved in a slice data portion of the
bitstream.
(Ans. 13). The Examiner further finds:
The concept of having SAO parameters for the associated
plurality of the regions and data for the associated plurality of
the regions being interleaved in the slice data portion of the bit
stream only entails that the SAO parameters and data are inserted
alternately or regularly within a slice data portion of the bit
stream. The fact that Fu ['353] mentions that an exemplary
syntax for SAO parameters can be incorporated in Adaptation
Parameter Set (APS), Picture Parameter Set (PPS) or slice header
does not preclude the SAO parameters from being alternately
inserted within a slice data portion. As stated above, since
LCU's are part of a slice, for any slice where there are LCU's
with its own SAOP value, there will be SAO parameters,
corresponding to each of the LCU's with its own SAOP value,
interleaved in that slice data portion of the bit stream, as would
be known according to the HEVC standard. As described by Fu
['353] in [0049], in LCU-based SAO, each LCU has its own
SAOP. As such, each LCU with its own SAOP that is part of a
4
Appeal2017-001829
Application 13/593,973
slice, or slice data, in the bitstream will have its associated SAO
parameters interleaved in that slice data portion of the bitstream.
(Ans. 13-14). Additionally, the Examiner maintains that
given the broadest reasonable interpretation, "slice data" does
not necessarily have to correspond to the slice_ data() syntax as
shown in FIG. 4 of appellant's drawings. "Slice data" can simply
and broadly refer to any data portion in a bi[t]stream that is part
of a slice, which has known as early as when the H.264/ A VC
standard came out. Therefore, showing that each LCU that is
part of a slice, or slice data, in the bitstream has its own SAOP
would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to see that there will
be SAO parameters, corresponding to each of the LCU' s with its
own SAOP value, interleaved in that slice data portion of the bit
stream, as would be known according to the HEVC standard.
(Ans. 14). Finally, the Examiner finds:
Examiner points out one last time that the fact that the
SAO parameters could be placed in the slice header does not
preclude the SAO parameters from being alternately inserted
within a slice data portion. As stated above, since LCU' s are
part of a slice, for any slice where there are LCU' s with its own
SAOP value, there will be SAO parameters, corresponding to
each of the LCU' s with its own SAOP value, interleaved in that
slice data portion of the bit stream, as would be known according
to the HEVC standard. As described by Fu ['353] in [0049], in
LCU-based SAO, each LCU has its own SAOP. As such, each
LCU with its own SAOP that is part of a slice, or slice data, in
the bitstream will have its associated SAO parameters
interleaved in that slice data portion of the bitstream.
Furthermore, Examiner explicitly stated that Fu ['353] does not
explicitly teach wherein the regions are non-overlapping regions.
However, Francois teaches wherein the regions are non-
overlapping regions ([O 160] - "A slice is a part of the image or
the entire image. In HEVC these slices are divided into non-
overlapping Largest Coding Units (LCUs)").
(Ans. 16).
5
Appeal2017-001829
Application 13/593,973
Appellants contend that the sections of the Fu '353 reference
identified by the Examiner are related to the determination of the SAO
parameters associated with the LCUs or CUs in an encoder, and there is
nothing in the sections of the Fu '353 reference cited by the Examiner that
addresses how the SAO parameters are encoded into the bit stream. (App.
Br. 26). Rather, Appellants contend that the Fu '353 reference explicitly
teaches placing the SAO parameters in the slice header portion and this
teaching in the Fu '353 reference of placing the SAO parameters in the slice
header portion of the bit stream is exactly what is shown in prior art Figure 3
of the instant application. (App. Br. 26-27; see also Reply Br. 4).
We disagree with the Examiner's overly broad claim
interpretation regarding the claimed "slice data portion" "can simply
and broadly refer to any data portion in a bi[t]stream that is part of a
slice, which has known as early as when the H.264/ A VC standard
came out." (Ans. 14). Rather, we find a difference between the data
portion and the header portion for each of the bit streams with regards
to the claimed interleaving of the SAO parameters.
Moreover, we agree with Appellants that the Fu '353 reference
teaches and suggests only encoding the SAO parameters in the header
portion of a bit stream rather than interleaved with the video data
portion, which does not teach or suggest the claimed "encoding the
SAO parameters in a slice data portion of a bit stream, wherein the
SAO parameters for the associated plurality of the non-overlapping
regions and data for the associated plurality of the non-overlapping
regions are interleaved in the slice data portion of the bit stream."
6
Appeal2017-001829
Application 13/593,973
As a result, we cannot sustain the rejection of illustrative independent
claim 17 and dependent claims 19-23.
With respect to independent claims 24, 30, 45, 52, and 60 and their
dependent claims 26-29, 31-34, 37--44, 47-51, 54-59, and 62-66, we find
each of the independent claims contains similar claim limitations argued
above with respect to illustrative independent claim 17. As a result, we
cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims 24, 30, 45, 52, and 60 and
their respective dependent claims 26-29, 31-34, 37--44, 47-51, 54-59, and
62-66.
With respect to dependent claims 18, 25, 35, 36, 46, 53, and 61, the
Examiner does not identify how the additional references remedy the noted
deficiency above, and we cannot sustain the rejections of claims 18, 25, 35,
36, 46, 53, and 61 for the same reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 17-66 based upon
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claims 17-66 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
7