Jonatan Samuelsson et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 17, 2019

13637242 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 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.
13/637,242 09/25/2012 Jonatan Samuelsson 4015-8286 / P35505-US2 7382
24112 7590 10/17/2019
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
SECHSER, JILL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/17/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JONATAN SAMUELSSON, RICKARD SJOBERG,
and PER WENNERSTEN
____________________

Appeal 2018-006816
Application 13/637,242
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JENNIFER S. BISK, LARRY J. HUME, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.

BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 19 and 22, which are all claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “[A]pplicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-006816
Application 13/637,242

2
BACKGROUND2
Appellant’s disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to
“management of pictures in a video encoding/decoding process.” Spec. 1:4.
Claim 19, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
19. A method of decoding a representation of a current
picture of a video stream of multiple pictures belonging to
multiple temporal layers using reference pictures, wherein each
picture belongs to a temporal layer, of said multiple temporal
layers, identified by a temporal layer identity, the method
comprising:
receiving least significant bits of a Picture Order Count
(POC) value (pic_order_cnt_lsb) of the current picture
from a bitstream;
identifying a previous reference picture in decoding order
that has a temporal layer identity equal to zero, said
previous reference picture belonging to a temporal layer
identified by the temporal layer identity;
determining the POC value of the current picture, to be
used by the decoder, as a sum of the pic_order_cnt_lsb
and most significant bits of the POC value
(PicOrderCntMsb) of the current picture;
wherein the PicOrderCntMSb of the current picture is
derived using at least a prevPicOrderCntMsb and a
prevPicOrderCntLsb, where:
the prevPicOrderCntMsb is set equal to the
PicOrderCntMsb of the identified previous
reference picture in decoding order that has the
temporal layer identity equal to zero; and

2 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Specification filed
September 25, 2012 (“Spec.”), the Non-Final Office Action mailed August
23, 2017 (“Non-Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed January 5, 2018
(“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 10, 2018 (“Ans.”), and
the Reply Brief filed June 20, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2018-006816
Application 13/637,242

3
the prevPicOrderCntLsb is set equal to the
pic_order_cnt_lsb of the identified previous
reference picture in decoding order that has the
temporal layer identity equal to zero.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.).
REJECTION
Claims 19 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of US 2007/0183494 A1, published
Aug. 9, 2007 (“Hannuksela ’494”) and WO 2007/080223 A1, published
July 19, 2007 (“Hannuksela ’223”). Non-Final Act. 5–10.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive arguments
for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis in our analysis below.
Rejection of Claims 19 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner finds that claims 19 and 22 would have been obvious
over the combination of Hannuksela ’494 and Hannuksela ’223. Non-Final
Act. 5–10. Specifically, the Examiner contends that Hannuksela ’223
teaches or suggests “determining the [Picture Order Count] POC value of the
Appeal 2018-006816
Application 13/637,242

4
current picture, to be used by the decoder, as a sum of the pic_order_cnt_lsb
and most significant bits of the POC value (PicOrderCntMsb) of the current
picture,” as recited by each of the independent claims, 19 and 22. Non-Final
Act. 7 (citing Hannuksela ’223, 44).
Appellant argues that “nothing in the Examiner’s argument or in the
cited section of Hannuksela223 supports the Examiner’s position that
Hannuksela223 teaches summing pic_order_cnt_lsb and PicOrderCntMsb
to determine the POC value of the current picture.” Appeal Br. 3; see also
Appeal Br. 7 (“Further, nothing in the cited section or the rest of
Hannuksela223 teaches or suggests determining a POC value of the current
picture as a sum of the pic_order_cnt_lsb and the PicOrderCntMsb of the
current picture, as recited in the claims.”).
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner does not sufficiently
explain, nor is it clear from the cited portions of Hannuksela ’223, if or how
Hannuksela ’223 determines the POC value of the current picture. We see
no disclosure in any of the cited portions of Hannuksela ’223 that
pic_order_cnt_lsb and PicOrderCntMsb are added together. And the
Examiner does not explain that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
find such determination obvious based on Hannuksela ’223’s disclosure.
See Non-Final Act. 3–4, 6–8; Ans. 2–3.
Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments
advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other
arguments. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir.
1984) (finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision
based on “a single dispositive issue”).
Appeal 2018-006816
Application 13/637,242

5
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19
and 22 as obvious over Hannuksela ’494 and Hannuksela ’223.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19 and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
19, 22 103(a) Hannuksela ’494,
Hannuksela ’223
19, 22

REVERSED