Fan Zhang et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 21, 2019

14424067 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2019)

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.
14/424,067 02/26/2015 Fan Zhang PA120035 9438
24498 7590 08/21/2019
Vincent E. Duffy
THOMSON Licensing
19868 Collins Road
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
EXAMINER
BECK, LERON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/21/2019 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):
Patricia.Verlangieri@InterDigital.com
mike.pugel@eurekovation.com
vincent.duffy@technicolor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte FAN ZHANG, NING LIAO, KAI XIE, and ZHIBO CHEN1
_____________

Appeal 2018-007532
Application 14/424,067
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and IFTIKHAR AHMED,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 through 11, and 14 through 18.
Final Act. 1. Claims 3, 4, 12, 13, and 19 have been canceled and claims 20
through 24 have not been rejected. Id.; Amendment 7 (May 25, 2017). We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Thomson Licensing.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-007532
Application 14/424,067

2

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for determining video quality by
determining content complexity based upon prediction residuals of a block
of pictures in a video. Abstract.
Claims 1 and 8 are illustrative of the invention and reproduced below
(with emphasis added to certain disputed limitations).
1. A method for assessing video quality of a video
included in a bitstream, wherein the method is configured
to be executed on a processor, the method comprising:
determining a parameter responsive to a variance
of prediction residuals of a block of a picture in the
video;
adjusting the determined parameter responsive to
encoding configuration of the block, wherein the encoding
configuration includes at least one of a picture type and
GOP (Group of Picture) structure; and
determining a quality metric, representative of
video quality of the video included in the bitstream, in
response to the adjusted parameter.

8. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
performing at least one of monitoring quality of the
bitstream, adjusting the bitstream in response to the
quality metric, creating a new bitstream based on the
quality metric, adjusting parameters of a distribution
network used to transmit the bitstream, determining
whether to keep the bitstream based on the quality metric,
and choosing an error concealment mode at a decoder.

Appeal 2018-007532
Application 14/424,067

3

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2
The Examiner has rejected claims 8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement. Final Act. 3.
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 7, 10, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2010/0316126) and Zhao (US
2014/0153640). Final Act. 3–6.
The Examiner has rejected claims 2 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Chen, Zhao, and Zhang (US 7,477,688). Final
Act. 6.
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 5 through 7, 10, and 13 through
16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sugimoto (US
2011/0228859), and Zhao. Final Act. 6–10.
The Examiner has rejected claims 9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Chen and Sugimoto. Final Act. 10.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’
arguments. Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s written description and obviousness rejections.

2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed
February 27, 2018, the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed August 3,
2017, and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed May 18, 2018.
Appeal 2018-007532
Application 14/424,067

4

Written Description Rejection
Appellants’ arguments directed to the written description rejection
assert the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 8 and 17 is in error as
the skilled artisan would recognize the inventor had possession of the
claimed invention at the time of filing. App. Br. 7–8. Specifically,
Appellants argue:
In claims 8 and 17, the inventive quality metric as recited
in claim 1 and 10 is applied to different applications, which are
already known in the art, such as monitoring quality of the
bitstream, adjusting the bitstream in response to the quality
metric, creating a new bitstream based on the quality metric,
adjusting parameters of a distribution network used to transmit
the bitstream, determining whether to keep the bitstream based
on the quality metric, or choosing an error concealment mode at
a decoder as described in page 16, line 7 to page 17, line 17.
App. Br. 8.
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner states that the
Appellants need to demonstrate possession of the invention by “descriptive
means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set
forth the claimed invention” which the Examiner finds is not done by
Appellants. Ans. 11 (citing Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565
(Fed. Cir. 1897). Here, the Examiner states that the Appellants’ mere
citation to an article to demonstrate use of quality metrics to monitor,
benchmark and optimize does not meet the Appellants’ burden to
demonstrate possession of the invention. Id.
We disagree with the Examiner that Appellants’ originally filed
Specification does not demonstrate possession of the invention. The written
description requirement serves “to ensure that the inventor had possession,
as of the filing date of the application relied on, of the specific subject matter
Appeal 2018-007532
Application 14/424,067

5

later claimed by him; how the specification accomplishes this is not
material.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262 (CCPA 1976). In order to
meet the written description requirement, Appellants do not have to utilize
any particular form of disclosure to describe the subject matter claimed, but
“the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to
recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed.” In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d
1008, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Put another way, “the applicant must . . .
convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing
date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention.” Vas-Cath, Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (emphasis in original).
Finally, “[p]recisely how close the original description must come to comply
with the description requirement of § 112 must be determined on a
case-by-case basis.” Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1039 (Fed. Cir.
1995) (quoting Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1561).
We concur with the Appellants that the originally filed Specification
identifies that at the time of filing, using the quality metric in the manner
recited in claims 8 and 17. We have reviewed the disclosure on page 16 of
Appellants’ Specification and concur with the Appellants that it describes
the application of the quality metric in conventional systems. For example,
it lists encoding parameters that can be altered to adjust the bitstream in
response to the quality metric. We additionally note that claim 8 is an
originally filed claim. See Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Ball Metal
Beverage Container Corp., 635 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting
that original claims are part of the Specification and often will satisfy the
written description requirement). Thus, Appellants’ originally filed
Appeal 2018-007532
Application 14/424,067

6

specification demonstrates possession of the subject matter of claims 8 and
17.
Obviousness Rejection Chen and Zhao
Appellants argue on, pages 9 through 16 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 10 is in error. These
arguments address the references individually. Appellants argue that Chen
does not teach the limitation directed to determining a parameter (motion
complexity) responsive to prediction residuals. App. Br. 11. Further,
Appellants assert that even assuming that Chen teaches a determined
parameter (motion complexity) responsive to prediction residuals, it does not
teach adjusting the determined parameter (motion complexity) responsive
the encoding configuration, including one of picture type or group of
pictures; or that the quality metric is determined based upon the adjusted
determined parameter (motion complexity), as claimed. App. Br. 12–13.
Further, Appellants argue that Zhao does not make up for the deficiencies
noted in Chen. App. Br. 14–16.
The Examiner in response to Appellants’ argument finds that both
Chen and Zhao teach determining a parameter responsive to a variance of
prediction residuals, equating the complexity to the “determined parameter”.
Answer 12 (citing Chen para. 57 and Zhao para. 27). The Examiner cites to
Chen as disclosing adjusting the determined parameter responsive to the
encoding configuration of the block, equating the motion resize to the
determined parameter. Answer 12 (citing Chen para. 77). Further, the
Examiner finds that Chen teaches the motion complexity is responsive to the
group of pictures. Answer 13 (citing Chen paras. 50–51).
Appeal 2018-007532
Application 14/424,067

7

We have reviewed the cited teachings of Chen and Zhao and concur
with the Examiner that Zhao, in paragraph 27, teaches determining a
complexity (which meets the claimed determined parameter) responsive to a
variance in prediction residuals. However, we disagree with the Examiner
that Chen teaches adjusting the determined parameter as claimed. We note
that independent claims 1 and 10 recite determining a parameter based upon
residuals, and that this determined parameter is adjusted. The Examiner’s
response equates the determined parameter to the complexity for the first
limitation of claim 1 (determine responsive to residuals), and the Examiner’s
response equates a different parameter, motion resize, for the second
limitation. Thus, the Examiner has not shown that the parameter determined
responsive to residuals is adjusted as claimed. Similarly, while paras. 50–51
of Chen discuss that the complexity is related to the motion vectors in the
group of pictures, we are not persuaded that this teaches adjusting a
previously determined complexity. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 10, and dependent claims
7 and 16 under Chen and Zhao.
The Examiner has not shown that the additional teachings of Zhang or
Sugimoto, used in the obviousness rejections of claims 2 and 11, and claims
9 and 18, respectively, remedy the deficiencies in the obviousness rejection
of claims 1 and 10.
Obviousness Rejection Sugimoto and Zhao
Appellants argue on pages 18 through 19 that the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claims 1 and 10 is in error. Appellants argue in addition to
the above discussion of Zhao, that Sugimoto does not teach adjusting the
determined parameter responsive to the encoding configuration of the block.
Appeal 2018-007532
Application 14/424,067

8

The Examiner in response to Appellants’ arguments finds that
Sugimoto “discloses the spatial degradation can be calculated based on an
equation. The equation can be adjusted as seen by the variables. The
equation is the encoding configuration.” Answer 14 (citing Sugimoto para.
58).
Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection. The Examiner’s rejection appears to equate Sugimoto’s
differential root mean square value of the DCT components between blocks
of pixels with the claimed determined parameter. Final Act 7. Further, the
Examiner cites to paragraphs 45, 46, and 50 as teaching the adjusting
limitation. Id. We have reviewed the cited teachings (para. 58 and
associated formula cited on page 14 of the Answer and paras. 45, 46, 50, and
52 cited by the Examiner on page 7 of the Final Rejection) of Sugimoto. We
are not persuaded that the Examiner has shown that the parameter
determined responsive to residuals is in fact the parameter adjusted as
claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claims 1, 10 and dependent claims 5 through 7, and
13 through 16 based upon Sugimoto and Zhao.

DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to: reject claims 1, 2, 5
through 11, and 14 through 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and to reject claims
8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.

REVERSED