Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 19, 2017

11874123 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 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.
11/874,123 10/17/2007 Ye-Kui Wang 042933/412709 1876
10949 7590
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
TRAN, THINH D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/23/2017 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):
u sptomail @ alston .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YE-KUI WANG, YING CHEN,
and MISKA HANNUKSELA
Appeal 2016-008753
Application 11/874,1231
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—4, 6—9, 11—14, 16—19, and 21—24, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 are cancelled. App. Br. 16—20.
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Nokia Corporation.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-008753
Application 11/874,123
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
Appellants’ disclosed “invention is generally related to scalable video
coding. Specifically, the . . . invention is directed to reference picture
management for single-loop decoding of scalable video signals.” Spec. 11.
Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
decoding an enhancement layer of a scalable bitstream;
constructing a reference picture list for the decoded
enhancement layer;
constructing a reference picture list for each layer lower
than the decoded enhancement layer independently from the
reference picture list for the decoded enhancement layer, wherein
sample values for the pictures of each lower layer are not
decoded and the reference picture list representing the pictures
of each lower layer is not associated with decoded sample values;
performing a reference picture marking for the decoded
enhancement layer; and
performing a reference picture marking for each layer
lower than the decoded enhancement layer independently from
the reference picture marking for the decoded enhancement
layer.
App. Br. (Claims Appendix) 15 (claim history omitted).
2
Appeal 2016-008753
Application 11/874,123
The Rejection 2
Claims 1—4, 6—9, 11—14, 16—19, and 21—24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e)3 as being anticipated by Han et al. (US 2006/0165302;
July 27, 2006; hereinafter “Han”). See Final Act. 3—7.
The Record
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.” filed Dec. 29, 2015), Reply Brief, (“Reply Br.” filed Sept. 22,
2016), and the Specification (“Spec.” filed Oct. 17, 2007) for the positions
of Appellants; and the Final Office Action (“Final Act.” mailed Oct. 23,
2014) and Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.” mailed July 22, 2014) for the
reasoning, findings, and conclusions of the Examiner.
ISSUE
The dispositive issue4 presented by Appellants’ arguments is whether
the Examiner errs in finding Han discloses
constructing a reference picture list for each layer lower than the
decoded enhancement layer independently from the reference
picture list for the decoded enhancement layer, wherein sample
values for the pictures of each lower layer are not decoded
(emphasis added), as recited in representative claim 1.
2 A rejection of all pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
(see Final Act. 2) is withdrawn. Ans. 2.
3 The rejection is under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. in effect prior to the
effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 (“pre-AIA”).
Final Act 2.
4 Appellants’ arguments present additional issues. Because the identified
issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional issues.
3
Appeal 2016-008753
Application 11/874,123
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Han discloses that the “sample values for the
pictures of each lower layer are not decoded” because Han discloses that
when the resolutions of the enhancement layer and the lower layers are the
same, the lower layers need not be up-sampled. Final Act. 3^4 (citing Han
76—79, Fig. 8). The Examiner explains that
the up-sampl[ing] of the base layer image to bring the base layer
image to the resolution of the enhancement layer is omitted as
indicated by par. 76—79 of HAN, therefore the base layer image
is not decoded with the up-sample[r], this would [be]
considered] as “sample values for the pictures of each lower
layer are not decoded.”
Ans. 4—5.
Appellants contend that
[u]p-sampling an image to match the resolution of the
enhancement layer fails to disclose, teach, or suggest anything
related to whether sample values for the pictures of each lower
layer are decoded. The mere fact that Han’s virtual forward
reference frame may or may not pass thorough the up-sampler
has nothing to do with the decoding of sample values for the
pictures of each lower layer.
App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 2.
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner appears to equate “up-
sampling” an image with “decoding” sample values for the image, but does
not sufficiently explain why these are the same. As a matter of logic, even
accepting, arguendo and without deciding, that up-sampling an image
requires decoding the sample values of the image, not up-sampling does not
imply that the sample values are not decoded. We note that Han’s Figure 8
illustrates the base layer being processed by a “base layer decoder (810)”
which implies that the base layer sample values are decoded.
4
Appeal 2016-008753
Application 11/874,123
With regard to claim 1, we find the Examiner has failed to establish
“each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
inherently described, in [Han],” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of
Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987), “in as complete detail as is
contained in the . . . claim,” Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226,
1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989), and “arranged as in the claim,” In re Bond, 910 F.2d
831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Independent claims 6, 11, 16, and 21 each recite
a similar limitation to that discussed above, and were rejected on a
substantially similar basis as claim 1. See Final Act. 3^4 (discussing claims
11 and 21), 5—6 (discussing claims 6 and 16). Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 6, 11, 16, and 21 and claims 2—
4, 7—9, 12—14, 17—19, and 22—24, which depend from claims 1,6, 11, 16,
and 21 respectively.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—4, 6—9, 11—14, 16—19,
and 21—24 is reversed.
REVERSED
5