Ex Parte Zhu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2019

14602631 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/602,631 01/22/2015
74507 7590
Dolby Laboratories Inc.
1275 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
02/27/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
LihuaZhu
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.
Al6061US03 7433
EXAMINER
USTARIS, JOSEPH G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2019 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):
mguo@dolby.com
Patents@dolby.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LIHUA ZHU, JIANCONG LUO, PENG YIN, and
JIHENGYANG
Appeal 2018-006362
Application 14/602,631
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
all pending claims, namely, claims 1, 3, 4, and 17-25. App. Br. 3. 2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 3.
2 This Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed August 24, 2017
("Final Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed February 22, 2018 ("App.
Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed April 4, 2018 ("Ans."); Appellants'
Reply Brief filed June 4, 2018 ("Reply Br."); and Appellants' Specification
filed January 22, 2015 ("Spec.").
Appeal2018-006362
Application 14/602,631
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
Appellants' invention generally relates to a method and apparatus for
encoding and decoding video data in a scalable manner. Spec. 1: 17-18.
According to Appellants, "[ c ]oding video data according to several
layers can be useful when terminals for which data are intended have
different capacities and therefore do not decode a full data stream but only
part of a full data stream. When the video data are coded according to
several layers in a scalable manner, the receiving terminal can extract from
the received bit-stream a portion of the data according to the terminal's
profile." Spec. 1:21-28.
An exemplary embodiment of such a video encoding apparatus
includes (1) a sequence parameter set ("SPS") network abstraction layer
("NAL") unit, which describes parameters for use in decoding a first-layer
encoding of a sequence of images, Spec. 1:31-2:2; and (2) a supplemental
("SUP") SPS NAL unit, which has a different NAL unit type than SPS NAL
units and describes parameters for use in decoding a second-layer encoding
of the sequence of images, Spec. 2:2-5, 5:30-32. According to Appellants,
these separate SPS NAL and SUP SPS NAL units allow for transmission of
layer-dependent parameters for non-base layers in a scalable video coding
("SVC") and multi-view video coding ("MVC") environment, which are
extensions of the H.264/MPEG-4 Advanced Video Coding ("A VC")
standard. Spec. 5: 15-29, Abstract. Appellants state that using SUP SPS
NAL units provides improved "efficiency and compatibility" in video
encoding and decoding. Spec. 6:13.
2
Appeal2018-006362
Application 14/602,631
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter on appeal:
1. A decoding method comprising:
accessing information from a first parameter set contained
in a first network abstraction layer ("NAL") unit, the first
parameter set being a syntax structure which contains syntax
elements that apply to zero or more entire coded video
sequences, and the information describing a parameter for use in
decoding a coded first-layer of an image in a sequence of images,
the parameter being common to multiple layers of the image;
accessing supplemental information from a second
parameter set contained in a second NAL unit separate from the
first NAL unit and having a different NAL unit type code from
that of the first NAL unit, the second NAL unit being associated
with a coded second-layer of said multiple layers, and the
supplemental information from the second NAL unit indicating
(i) a video usability information ("VUI") parameter having layer-
dependent information unique for decoding the coded second-
layer of the image in the sequence of images, wherein the second
NAL unit does not include VUI parameter for every layer of the
image, and (ii) an identifier of the first parameter set to indicate
that the second NAL unit is used to supplement the first NAL
unit;
identifying, based on the identifier of the first parameter
set, a correspondence between the first NAL unit and the second
NALunit;
decoding the coded first-layer of the image based on, the
accessed information from the first NAL unit; and
decoding, after identifying the correspondence between
the first NAL unit and the second NAL unit, the coded second-
layer of the image based on (i) the accessed parameter from the
first NAL unit, and (ii) the VUI parameter having layer-
dependent information unique for decoding the coded second-
layer of the image.
3
Appeal2018-006362
Application 14/602,631
References
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability of the claims on appeal:
Hannuksela
Wang
Wan
Eleftheriadis
US 2005/0254575 Al
US 2006/0251169 Al
US 2007 /0076799 Al
US 2007/0291837 Al
Rejection
Nov. 17, 2005
Nov. 9, 2006
Apr. 5, 2007
Dec. 20, 2007
The Examiner made the following rejection of the claims on appeal:
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 17-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wang, Eleftheriadis, Wan, and Hannuksela.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue nonobviousness of all independent claims, namely
claims 1, 18, and 25, as a group, and do not separately argue any dependent
claims. See App. Br. 14--15. Accordingly, we select and review
independent claim 1. See 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv) (2017). We do not
consider arguments that Appellants could have made but chose not to make
in the Brief, so we deem any such arguments to be waived. See 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants argue "[a] critical feature of the claims missing in Wang,
Eleftheriadis, Wan and Hannuskela [sic] relates to a unique mechanism for
transmitting layer-dependent information using [SUP SPS NAL] units."
App. Br. 8; see Reply Br. 4. More specifically, Appellants argue "Wang in
view of Eleftheriadis fail to disclose or suggest supplemental information
from a second parameter set contained in a second NAL unit separate from
4
Appeal2018-006362
Application 14/602,631
the first NAL unit and having a different NAL unit type code from that of
the first NAL unit, and the second NAL unit is associated with a coded
second-layer of multiple layers [as] recited in claims 1, 18 and 25." App.
Br. 11. Appellants argue with repeated emphasis that the cited art does not
teach "a second parameter set contained in a second NAL unit separate
from a first NAL unit." Reply Br. 4. Appellants submit that all grounds of
rejection in the Final Action "stand and fall" in view of whether Wang and
Eleftheriadis teach the "second parameter set contained in a second NAL
unit element" noted above. App. Br. 11.
Appellants' nonobviousness arguments directed to Wang and
Eleftheriadis effectively reduce to one issue: whether Wang teaches using
only one SPS for all layers. 3 We agree with the Examiner that Wang is not
3 See, e.g., App. Br. 11 ([ 1] "Wang uses one sequence parameter set of SPS
parameters." [2] "Because Wang discloses one SPC [sic: SPS] for all layers,
Wang does not disclose or suggest a second NAL unit that is associated with
a coded second-layer of multiple layers."); App. Br. 12 ([3] "[T]he Examiner
relies solely on Eleftheriadis ... to allege a second NAL unit to be
combined with Wang even though Wang teaches using only one SPC [sic:
SPS] to avoid redundant traffic." [4] "[T]he Examiner incorrectly alleges
that Wang discloses an 'additional SPC [sic: SPS] for enchancement [sic:
enhancement] layer data.' . . . Wang discloses a single parameter set SPC
[sic: SPS] for all layers - not an additional SPC [sic: SPS] for each layer,
which does not suggest modification by Eleftheriadias [sic] .... "); App.
Br. 14 ([5] "[O]ne of ordinary skill reviewing Wang would find only one
parameter set SPS or NAL unit for encoding all layers to avoid redundant
traffic."); Reply Br. 5 ([6] "specific teaching in Wang to use only one
Sequence Parameter Set (SPS);" [7] "Wiegand also does not remove the
teaching in Wang to 'use only one SPS. "' [8] "[T]he Examiner ignores the
express teachings in Wang to use a single SPS and the specific claim
elements for a second parameter set contained in a second NAL unit
5
Appeal2018-006362
Application 14/602,631
so limited. See Ans. 6 ("Appellant[s'] arguments regarding the Wang
reference's disclosure of a single SPS are fundamentally flawed in view of
Appellant[s'] own specification and the state of the art at the time of the
invention.").
Wang is generally directed to video encoding and decoding, and more
specifically to scalable video data processing, as illustrated, for example, in
Wang's Figure 5a, reproduced below. See Wang ,r 2.
separate from the first NAL unit."); Reply Br. 6 ([9] "First, the Examiner's
reliance on Eleftheriadis depends on Wang teaching multiple parameters sets
for multiple layers - which it does not. Because Wang teaches to 'use only
one SPS' to avoid redundant data traffic ... , Eleftheriadis cannot be
combined with Wang to allege multiple SPSs in separate NAL units .... ");
Reply Br. 6-7 ([10] "Since Wang teaches using 'only one SPS,' ... one of
ordinary skill ... would not find in Wang the benefit of providing
supplemental information in a second parameter set contained in a second
NAL unit different from a first NAL unit. The Examiner cannot eradicate
this teaching in Wang, and combine Wang with Eleftheriadis to argue that
the combination teaches using multiple parameter sets. In the Examiner's
Answer, the combination of Eleftheriadis and Wang depends on Wang
teaching using multiple parameter sets which it does not. Because Wang
teaches using only one SPS, Eleftheriadis cannot be combined with Wang.").
6
Appeal2018-006362
Application 14/602,631
Enhancement Layer (EL)
Encoder 1 ton
I\
--- EL {
#·•··········
: SPS l ton ;
l .,
/ / , , , r ~
>-:~~---""'' B Layer (BL) ~ tr-;;;f)
Encoder ---~ ••••• • • • nepende.ncym o
\.7
Motion Estimation {ME)
Fig. Su ~105
Figure 5a of Wang illustrates Wang's video encoding principle,
namely, "[ e Jach BL [base layer] or EL [ enhancement layer] is provided with
a DependencyID and with an SPS," and "the encoder first determine[s] SPSs
[plural] to be used and checks if the SPS parameters of any subset of all the
base layers and enhancement layers are substantially equal," and if so,
"use[ s] only one SPS for encoding of the subset of layers to avoid redundant
further data traffic." Wang ,r 62 (emphases added); Figs. 8a, 8b. Wang
explains: "the constraint that a sequence parameter set (SPS) is activated for
each value of Dependency ID may be removed. Rather, a new SPS is
activated only when it is needed. A new sequence is only needed when at
least one SPS parameter other than seq_parameter_set_id change is
required." Wang ,r 9 (emphasis added); see also Wang ,r 56 ("determining
the respective sequence parameter set (SPS) for each of said base layer and
all said enhancement layers is provided, wherein for a number of base or
enhancement layers if the selected SPS parameters are substantially equal,
only one SPS is used" (emphases added)). Notably, Wang's Figure 5a
7
Appeal2018-006362
Application 14/602,631
teaches "SPS O" for the base layer (BL) and "SPS 1 to n" for enhancement
layers (EL). See Wang Figs. 5a, 8a, 8b.
The Examiner finds Wang discloses, inter alia, "dependency ID, an
SPS for the base layer, and another [SPS] for all enhancement layers." Final
Act. 8. We agree with the Examiner that Wang is not limited to teaching
only one SPS for all layers as argued by Appellants, but as discussed above,
explicitly discloses SPSs for a base layer and for one or more enhancement
layers. Indeed, Wang reduces the number of SPSs only "if the SPS
parameters of any subset of all the base layers and enhancement layers are
substantially equal." Wang ,r 62. Appellants argue to the contrary by
reading Wang out of context-i.e., Appellants argue Wang discloses to "use
only one SPS," App. Br. 11-12, but ignore Wang's explicit disclosure that
doing so is limited to a "subset" of layers and only "if' that subset's SPS
parameters are "substantially equal," Wang ,r 62. Since Appellants'
nonobviousness arguments all rely either directly or indirectly on Wang
teaching using only one SPS for all layers, which we hold it is not so
limited, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error.
Notwithstanding the above dispositive issue with Wang (as argued by
Appellants), we also considered, and hereby adopt as our own, the
Examiner's findings and conclusion concerning the combination of Wang
and Eleftheriadis:
While Wang discloses an additional SPS for enhancement
layer data, where Wang does not explicitly disclose, Eleftheriadis
teaches accessing supplemental information from a second
parameter set contained in a second NAL unit separate from the
first NAL unit having a different NAL unit type code from that
of the first NAL unit, the second NAL unit being associated with
a coded second-layer of said multiple layers (Eleftheriadis
8
Appeal2018-006362
Application 14/602,631
Paragraph [0059] and corresponding Table III disclose a
scalability information SEI message, where an SEI message has
a different NAL unit type code that is different from an SPS type
code consistent with the A VC standard. In Table III, there are
f gs_layer_flag and temporal_level indicating both spatial and
temporal scalability and there is dependency_id consistent with
the disclosure of Wang.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate
the teaching of Eleftheriadis into the method of Wang, in order
to assist servers and media gateways in proper handling of SVC
streams (Eleftheriadis Paragraph [0039]).
Final Act. 9. As noted above, because Appellants' arguments against the
Wang-Eleftheriadis combination rely on Wang teaching only one SPS for all
layers ( which Wang is not so limited), we find Appellants' arguments
against this combination unpersuasive of Examiner error. See App. Br. 12-
14; Reply Br. 6-7. In addition, we agree with the Examiner that
"Applicant's arguments do not consider or address their combination, but
instead attack each reference in a vacuum, which is piecemeal analysis and
is improper." Final Act. 4--5; see Ans. 9-10; App. Br. 11-14; Reply Br. 5-
7. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually
where, as here, the rejection is based on a combination of references. See In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the Examiner's rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 18 and 25, which recite
similar limitations and were not argued separately, and dependent claims 3,
4, 17, and 19-24. See App. Br. 14--15; see also 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
9
Appeal2018-006362
Application 14/602,631
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and
17-25.
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).
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
10