Google LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 15, 2020

14177461 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 2020)

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.
14/177,461 02/11/2014 Alexander IZVORSKI 0715150.734-US2 4834
104433 7590 07/15/2020
Byrne Poh LLP/Google LLC
11 Broadway Ste 760
New York, NY 10004
EXAMINER
NOH, JAE NAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/15/2020 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):
info@byrnepoh.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ALEXANDER IZVORSKI,
MAKARAND DHARMAPURIKAR, and JUSTIN BISCHOFF1
____________________

Appeal 2019-002710
Application 14/177,461
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 5 and 7 through 31. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a) (2017). According to Appellant, Google Inc., is the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002710
Application 14/177,461

2
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to an approach for encoding a current
video frame that includes labeling points/regions for the current video frame
using graphics information for the current video frame, matching the
points/regions of the current video frame with points/regions of a previous
video frame using the labels for the points/regions of the current video frame
and deriving motion vectors for the points/regions of the current video
frame. See Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method for encoding a current video frame
comprising:
rendering the current video frame to generate a plurality
of primitives each including a point/region represented as a
two-dimensional geometric shape;
generating a label for each of the primitives of the current
video frame using graphics information for the current video
frame, the label being used to identify the primitive of a
rendered video frame, the graphic information including
information corresponding to the two-dimensional geometric
shape in a three-dimensional model space of the primitive;
determining a previous video frame associated with the
current video frame, the previous video frame being labeled
using the graphic information;
matching one of the plurality of primitives of the current
video frame with at least one of the plurality of primitives of
the previous video frame using the label for the primitive of the
current video frame, the matched primitive of the current video
frame having the same label as the at least one of the plurality
of primitives of the previous video frame; and
deriving motion vectors for the point/region
corresponding to the matched primitive of the current video
frame using a point/region corresponding to the at least one of
the plurality of primitives of the previous frame.

Appeal 2019-002710
Application 14/177,461

3
EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2
The Examiner rejected claims 1, and 7 through 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Boon (US 2009/0116760 A1, published May 7,
2009), and Wong (US 2004/0101056 A1, May 27, 2004). Final Act. 4–23.
The Examiner rejected claims 2 through 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Boon, Wong, and Parm (US 2014/0196102 A1, published
July 10, 2014). Final Act. 23–27.

35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections
With respect to claims 1, 15, and 16 Appellant argues the paragraphs
of Wong referenced by the Examiner do not support the Examiner’s finding
that the texture map or texture information are the same as the claimed
primitives or labels. Appeal Br. 9–11. Appellant argues:
There is no indication in Wong that motion vector data is
anything other than conventional motion vector data. Therefore,
the motion vector information and the motion vector texture
map are not used to label anything. Instead, the motion vector
information and the motion vector texture map are used to
enable 3D shader circuitry to provide motion compensation
prediction instead of dedicated motion compensation prediction
hardware.
Appeal Br. 11.
Further, Appellant argues the references fail to disclose motion
vectors as claimed, stating “Wong discloses using motion vectors to generate

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed September 4,
2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Final Office Action mailed August 25, 2017 (“Final
Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed December 13, 2018 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2019-002710
Application 14/177,461

4
texture signals and texture maps. Texture signals and texture maps are not
motion vectors.” Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis omitted). Based upon these
arguments Appellant concludes that:
The combination of Boon and Wong fails to disclose
“matching one of the plurality of primitives of the current video
frame with at least one of the plurality of primitives of the
previous video frame using the label for the primitive of the
current video frame, the matched primitive of the current video
frame having the same label as the at least one of the plurality
of primitives of the previous video frame,” as recited by claim
1, and as similarly recited in independent claims 15 and 16. The
combination of Boon and Wong fails to disclose “determining a
motion vector for each vertex of the current video frame by
comparing the position of the plurality of vertices for each
vertex in the current video frame to the position of the plurality
of vertices a corresponding vertex in the previous video frame,”
as recited by claim 17, and as similarly recited in independent
claims 22 and 27.
Instead, Wong performs prediction using textures of a
macroblock in a “conventional manner.”
Appeal Br. 12.
The Examiner finds Boon teaches the disputed limitation of
generating labels (equated to Boon’s texture signals) for primitives in
current and previous frames, matching the labels and deriving motion
vectors. Final Act. 5–7 (citing Boon ¶¶ 13, 202). The Examiner finds that
Boon does not teach rendering the current video frame as claimed and that
Wong teaches rendering the current video frame to generate plural
primitives as claimed. Final Act. 8–10 (citing Wong ¶¶ 8, 25 80, 81).
Further, in Response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner states that
absent a specific definition of a “label” the texture information of Wong is
Appeal 2019-002710
Application 14/177,461

5
deemed to be a label. Ans. 25. Moreover, in response to Appellant’s
arguments concerning the combination of the reference not teaching
determining motion vectors for vertices, the Examiner states:
Wong discloses in Pa0081, as an example, that the macroblock
(treated as a texture and motion compensated as a texture)
having four vertices and the destination vertices are processed
so as to perform motion compensation prediction which is
clearly understood by one of ordinary skilled in the art to be
performing matching and/or comparison of the textures
(macroblocks).
Ans. 27.
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 15, and 16. Each of these claims recites limitations of
generating labels for each primitive in a current and previous video frame,
matching the primitives and deriving motion vectors. We have reviewed the
teachings of Boon and Wong cited by the Examiner, and regardless of
whether the texture signal is a label, we do not find that the cited teachings
use labels (texture signals) for primitives to determine a match and derive a
motion vector as claimed. Rather, the texture information is used as part of
the prediction information (Boon ¶ 13). Although the prediction information
may include motion vectors (Boon ¶ 23), we do not see that the cited
paragraphs of Boon teach that the matching of textures signals between
images is used to generate the motion vectors. Thus, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 15, 16, and the claims which
depend thereupon, claims 7 through 14.
The Examiner has not shown that the additional teachings of Parm,
used in the rejection of dependent claims 2 through 5 make up for the
Appeal 2019-002710
Application 14/177,461

6
deficiency in the rejection of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we
similarly do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 through 5.
Independent claims 17, 22, and 27 however are of a different scope
than independent claims 1, 15, and 16. Independent claims 17, 22, and 27
do not recite labeling primitives, matching primitives of a current frame with
that of a previous frame, and deriving motion vectors based upon the
matched primitive. As such Appellant’s arguments directed to the labeling
of primitives and matching labeled primitives to generate motion vectors is
not commensurate with the scope of independent claims 17, 22, and 27.
These claims merely recite determining a position of a plural vertices in a
current and previous video frame and determining a motion vector based
upon a comparison of position. As discussed above, the Examiner equates
macroblocks with the claimed positions having vertices in a frame and finds
that the combination of Boon and Wong teaches generating motion vectors
as recited in claims 17, 22, and 27. We concur and note Boon teaches
generating a motion vector by comparing macroblock (see ¶¶ 6, 7, 144).
Appellant’s have not addressed this claim interpretation by the Examiner,
but rather merely assert the references “fails to disclose ‘determining a
motion vector for each vertex of the current video frame by comparing the
position of the plurality of vertices for each vertex in the current video frame
to the position of the plurality of vertices a corresponding vertex in the
previous video frame.’” Appeal Br. 12. This assertion by Appellant’s,
which does not address the Examiner’s claim interpretation, has not
persuaded us of error with respect to the rejection of independent claims 17,
22, and 27. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17
through 31.
Appeal 2019-002710
Application 14/177,461

7
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 7–31 103 Boon, Wong 17–31 1, 7–16
2–5 103 Boon, Wong, Parm 2–5
Overall
Outcome
17–31 1–5, 7–16

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2017).
AFFIRMED IN PART