Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2018

14098369 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/098,369 12/05/2013
15150 7590 09/19/2018
Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A.
1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Li Zhang
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.
1212-748US01/130851U4 1047
EXAMINER
LIMA, FABIO S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2018 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):
pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LI ZHANG, YING CHEN, and MARTA KARCZEWICZ
Appeal2018-001476
Application 14/09 8,3 69 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-28, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the Applicant, Qualcomm Incorporated, as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-001476
Application 14/098,369
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' application relates to digital video coding techniques
including special and/or temporal prediction to reduce or remove
redundancy in video sequences. Spec. ,r,r 3-4. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
1. A method of coding video data, the method comprising:
determining, for a first block of video data in a first layer
of video data, a temporal motion vector and associated temporal
reference picture for predicting the first block, wherein the
temporal reference picture has a picture order count value;
determining a disparity reference block in a disparity
reference picture indicated by a disparity vector associated with
the first block, wherein the disparity reference picture is
included in an access unit that includes a picture containing the
first block and is included in a second view, the second view
being a different view than the first view;
determining whether a decoded picture buffer contains a
temporal-disparity reference picture in the second view and
having the picture order count value of the temporal reference
picture, wherein the temporal-disparity reference picture is
located based on a combination of the temporal motion vector
and the disparity vector;
based on determining that the decoded picture buffer
does not contain a temporal-disparity reference picture in the
second view and having the picture order count value of the
temporal reference picture, modifying an inter-view residual
prediction process for predicting residual data of the first block;
and
coding the residual for the first block of video data with
the modified inter-view residual prediction process.
2
Appeal2018-001476
Application 14/098,369
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
as being anticipated by Gerhard et al., 3D-HEVC Test Model 2, Joint
Collaborative Team on 3D Video Coding Extension Development ofITU-T
SG16 ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 (Oct. 2012) ("Gerhard"). Final Act. 3-6.
Claims 3 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gerhard and Chen et al., AHGJO: Hooks related to motion
for the 3DV extension of HEVC, Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding
(JCT-VC) ofITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 (July
2012) ("Chen"). Final Act. 6-7.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in consideration of
Appellants' contentions and the evidence of record. Appellants persuade us
the Examiner fails to establish that the claims are unpatentable over the cited
references.
The Examiner finds Gerhard discloses "determining whether a
decoded picture buffer contains a temporal-disparity reference picture in the
second view and having the picture order count value of the temporal
reference picture, wherein the temporal-disparity reference picture is located
based on a combination of the temporal motion vector and the disparity
vector," as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3-4 ( citing Gerhard Fig. 9, Fig. 21,
§§ 2.2.5.2, 2.2.5).
Appellants argue the Examiner erred because Gerhard does not
disclose the "determining" limitation identified above. See App. Br. 9-14;
Reply Br. 5-9. In particular, Appellants argue claim 1 recites "modification
3
Appeal2018-001476
Application 14/098,369
of inter-view residual prediction process is based on a decoded picture buffer
not containing a temporal-disparity reference picture." App. Br. 10.
According to Appellants, "nothing in the cited portions of Tech even
contemplates the use of a temporal-disparity reference picture, as set forth in
claim 1, much less whether a decoded picture buffer contains a temporal-
disparity reference picture." Id. Appellants contend the Examiner cites
comparisons of view indexes to determine whether to enable inter-view
residual prediction, but does not cite any determination of whether the
decoded picture buff er contains a temporal-disparity reference picture as
claimed. Id. at 10-11.
The Examiner responds in the Answer, finding Gerhard discloses a
coding algorithm used in multi-view format, wherein the location of a
reference sample is obtained by adding the disparity to a sample location.
Ans. 3 (citing Gerhard§ 2.2.3). The Examiner further finds Gerhard teaches
deriving a disparity estimate from spatial and temporal blocks using inter-
view prediction or motion vectors obtained by inter-view prediction. Id.
The Examiner also notes that an ordinarily skilled artisan "would readily
identify the analogy between Figure 9 in [Gerhard] and Figure 9 in
Appellant's specification." Id. The Examiner finds Figure 9 of Gerhard
depicts a temporal-reference disparity picture 216 in the upper left comer.
Id. at 4. The Examiner finds the temporal-reference disparity picture 216 is
in the same view as the disparity reference picture 214, and the same time
instance as temporal reference picture 212. Id. at 4. The Examiner further
finds the temporal-disparity reference picture has the same picture order
count (POC) value as the current picture. Id. at 4-5 (citing Gerhard
§ 2.2.3.3).
4
Appeal2018-001476
Application 14/098,369
Appellants have persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds
Gerhard discloses temporal reference picture 216, depicted in the upper left
of Annotated Figure 9, which is reproduced from Appellants' Reply Brief
below. Reply Br. 6; Ans. 4.
curn:::nt pictw·c in re.krcnce vh•w
con:'1°s the rqfi:rence
,.m-np le iocot ion
sample location x in
r(_f~'n"IH<' vie1-i-·
216
. . disparirr vcaor 214
njcrence sample {given by mox dq-:rrl
!ocat1.o,1 XH 1., •. :/ ,. d
218
derired illOlion 1·eclor
,for curr.:.:"nt block
/ocat ion :x
current picture fn current FieH-'
Jn;:,x de1Jth n.due d in
(lSSt}ci;;m;c