Intel Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 10, 2020

14567162 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 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.
14/567,162 12/11/2014 ZHIJUN LEI 01.P73798 1076
119829 7590 06/10/2020
Green, Howard, & Mughal LLP
5 Centerpointe Dr.
Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
EXAMINER
SHAHNAMI, AMIR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/10/2020 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):
docketing@ghmip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZHIJUN LEI and JASON TANNER
Appeal 2019-002534
Application 14/567,162
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–25. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Intel
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002534
Application 14/567,162
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a partition mode and transform size
determination based on a flatness of video. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer–implemented method for video coding
comprising:
determining a first portion of a video frame is flat and a
second portion of the video frame is not flat based on flatness
checks of the first and second portions of the video frame;
in response to the first portion of the video frame being
flat:
bypassing an inter–prediction partition check for the first
portion of the video frame based on the first portion of the video
frame being flat; and
performing a final mode decision for the first portion of
the video frame based at least in part on an inter–prediction mode
coding cost for the first portion of the video frame associated
with an initial motion vector and an initial inter–prediction
partition choice for the first portion of the video frame; and
in response to the second portion of the video frame being
not flat:
performing the inter–prediction partition check for the
second portion of the video frame to generate a final motion
vector and a final inter–prediction partition choice for the second
portion of the video frame.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Zhang US 2009/0262800 A1 Oct. 22, 2009
Kobayashi US 2011/0002385 A1 Jan. 6, 2011
Jang WO 2013/009029 A2 Jan. 17, 2013

Appeal 2019-002534
Application 14/567,162
3
REJECTION
Claims 1–5, 7–15, 17–22, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi and Zhang. Final Act. 3.
Claims 6, 16, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kobayashi, Zhang, and Jang. Final Act. 25.
OPINION
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under
§ 103. We have considered and reviewed all arguments made in the Briefs,
Final Office Action, and Answer, and we address each of Appellant’s
arguments. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred for the reasons stated
below as well as for the reasons stated in the Final Office Action and
Answer, which we agree with and adopt.
We note that regardless of the general contentions and imputed
intended meanings articulated by Appellant in the Appeal Brief, “[i]t is the
claims that measure the invention.” See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp.
of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (citations omitted).
Independent Claim 1
Appellant argues “Kobayashi merely describes adopting an inter-
prediction mode preferentially with respect to an intra–prediction mode
when a macroblock is in a flat aggregate area and applying no preference
when a macroblock is not in a flat aggregate area.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant
argues that “the teaching of Zhang that 4x4 DCT is selected for flat
macroblocks has no weight in teaching a bypass of an inter–prediction
partition check in response to a portion being flat (and performing final
mode decision using an initial motion vector and inter–prediction partition
choice) as claimed” Id. at 10.
Appeal 2019-002534
Application 14/567,162
4
Therefore, the scope and content of Kobayashi and
Zhang fails to disclose bypassing an inter–prediction partition
check and performing a final mode decision for a first portion
of a video frame in response to the first portion being flat and
performing the inter–prediction partition check for a second
portion of the video frame in response to the second portion
being not flat as claimed.
Id. Appellant argues Zhang is concerned with transfer selection and is silent
on bypass of an inter–prediction check. Reply Br. 8.
Yet, as the Examiner finds, and we agree, Kobayashi teaches the
claimed bypassing of an inter–prediction partition check. Ans. 26 (citing
Kobayashi, Fig. 5b, ¶ 36). The claims recite bypassing an inter–prediction
partition check and performing a final mode decision for a first portion of a
video frame in response to the first portion being flat. Id. at 27. The
Examiner explains that Zhang, in Figure 2, contains a flatness check where
tile analysis is split based on the flatness determination of a portion of frame.
Id. The Examiner explains that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
bypassing merely requires omission of an inter–prediction check. Id. With
respect to the bypassing of an inter–prediction check for the portion of the
video frame, Zhang teaches the bypassing by omitting an inter–prediction
check and selecting a 4x4 DCT. See id. We agree with the Examiner because
Appellant provides insufficient evidence to show that the Specification or
claims limit “bypassing” in a way that, under a broad but reasonable
interpretation, is not encompassed by Zhang’s teachings in Figure 2.
Appellant also argues the Examiner provides insufficient rationale to
combine Kobayashi and Zhang. Appeal Br. 11. Upon reviewing the record
before us, we find that the Examiner’s suggestion for the proposed
modification in the prior art suffices as an articulated reason with some
rational underpinning to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See
Appeal 2019-002534
Application 14/567,162
5
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In summary, we
find that an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the claimed invention
would have combined Kobayashi’s teachings of an inter-prediction partition
check related to a macroblock with Zhang’s teachings of determining if a
current macroblock is flat macroblock, because both relate to the
determination of the flatness of a video block, as explained by the Examiner
in the Answer, because bypassing the inter-prediction check decreases the
processing required. Ans. 27; Final Act. 5. Because Appellant has not
demonstrated that the Examiner’s proffered combination would have been
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,” we
agree with the Examiner that the proposed modification would have been
within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550
U.S. at 418).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. For the
same reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 4–12, 14–19, and 21–25.
Despite nominally arguing these claims separately, Appellant reiterates
similar arguments made in connection with claim 1, and alleges that the
additional cited prior art fails to cure those purported deficiencies. Appeal
Br. 12–13. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons
previously discussed.

Dependent Claims 2, 3, 13, 20
Appellant also argues that “in contrast to teaching selection of a
maximum transform size (i.e., as recited in claims 2, 13, and 20), Zhang
selects at least the smaller of two available transform sizes as 4x4 DCT is
selected over 8x8 DCT.” Appeal Br. 11–12. Appellant argues “[t]herefore,
Appeal 2019-002534
Application 14/567,162
6
in contrast to selecting a maximum transform size in response to a portion
being flat, Zhang teaches selection of a smaller transform size.” Id.
The Examiner explains, however, that the claim merely recites a
maximum transform size for when a portion is flat. Ans. 28; Reply Br. 9. As
the Examiner explains, Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in scope
with the claims because:
As cited in Zhang Fig. 2 and [0034], when a macroblock is deemed
flat, a 4x4 OCT is selected. Appellant argues that since an 8x8 OCT is
available, the 4x4 OCT is not the maximum size. Appellant seems to
be arguing what is not claimed. Appellant is making the argument that
the largest possible transform size under any circumstance is selected
after the determination that the video frame is flat. This argument is
flawed in the sense that, in Zhang Fig. 2, the 4x4 OCT is the
maximum/largest transform size possible for when a portion of the
flat. Since the 4x4 OCT is the largest OCT possible in Fig. 2 when the
portion is flat, by Zhang selecting the 4x4 OCT when the portion of
the video is flat, it also selects the maximum transform size for the
first portion of the video frame when the portion is flat.

Ans. 28. We agree with the Examiner because Appellant provides
insufficient evidence to show that the Specification or claims limit
“maximum transform size” in a way that, under a broad but reasonable
interpretation, is not encompassed by Zhang’s teachings of selecting the 4x4
OCT as shown in Figure 2 and as described in paragraph 34. Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 13, and 20.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
Appeal 2019-002534
Application 14/567,162
7
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–15,
17–22, 24,
25
103 Kobayashi, Zhang

1–5, 7–15,
17–22, 24,
25

6, 16, 23 103 Kobayashi, Zhang,
Jang
6, 16, 23
Overall
Outcome:
1–25

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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).
AFFIRMED