Lu, Mei-Hsuan et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 1, 2021

2019003830 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 1, 2021)

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.
13/348,510 01/11/2012 Mei-Hsuan Lu 3382-87618-01 7894
26119 7590 01/01/2021
KLARQUIST SPARKMAN LLP
121 S.W. SALMON STREET
SUITE 1600
PORTLAND, OR 97204
EXAMINER
AN, SHAWN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/01/2021 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@klarquist.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MEI-HSUAN LU and MING-CHIEH LEE
Appeal 2019-003830
Application 13/348,510
Technology Center 2400
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, DAVID J. CUTITTA II, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–13 and 21–30, which are all of the 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 “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, the present application is
assigned to Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC, which is a subsidiary of
Microsoft Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003830
Application 13/348,510

2
TECHNOLOGY
The application relates to “video coding and decoding” and more
specifically to determining the capability for multiple bitstreams. Spec.
Abstract.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:

1. In a computing system that implements an encoding controller,
a method comprising:
receiving a request for encoder capability data;
with the computing system that implements the encoding
controller, determining the encoder capability data, the encoder
capability data including (1) data that indicate a number of
component bitstreams for simulcast as part of a multi-layer
encoding (MLE) bitstream, each of the component bitstreams
providing an encoded representation of a different simulcast
stream among multiple simulcast streams, each of the multiple
simulcast streams including the same input video samples,
wherein each of the component bitstreams is a scalable bitstream
having a base layer and at least one enhancement layer or is a
non-scalable bitstream having a single layer, and wherein each
of the component bitstreams is decodable to reconstruct its
version of the same input video samples, independent of
decoding of other ones of the component bitstreams to
reconstruct other versions of the same input video samples, and
(2) data that indicate scalable video coding capabilities for
encoding of the component bitstreams; and
sending the encoder capability data.
Appeal 2019-003830
Application 13/348,510

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references as prior art:
Name Reference Date
Boyce US 7,844,992 B2 Nov. 30, 2010
Burazerovic US 2006/0262846 A1 Nov. 23, 2006
Chen ’170 US 2013/0034170 A1 Feb. 7, 2013
Chen IEEE Bandwidth-Efficient Encoder Framework
for H.264/AVC Scalable Extension

Jang US 2013/0003833 A1 Jan. 3, 2013
Kang US 2008/0247460 A1 Oct. 9, 2008
Kato US 2005/0025234 A1 Feb. 3, 2005
Sievers US 2005/0201469 A1 Sept. 15, 2005
Yu US 2011/0001642 A1 Jan. 6, 2011
REJECTIONS
The Examiner makes the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). See Final Act. 4–5.
Claims
Rejected References
1–4, 7–11,
21–24, 27–30
Kato, Yu, Burazerovic, Boyce, Chen IEEE
5, 25 Kato, Yu, Burazerovic, Boyce, Chen IEEE, Sievers
6, 26 Kato, Yu, Burazerovic, Boyce, Chen IEEE, Chen ’170
12, 13 Kato, Yu, Burazerovic, Boyce, Chen IEEE, Jang, Kang
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues “none of the cited references, taken individually or
in combination with the other cited references, teaches or suggests . . .
component bitstreams representing the same input video, simulcast as part of
an MLE bitstream.” Appeal Br. 18.
More specifically, claim 1 recites that the encoder capability data
must include “data that indicate a number of component bitstreams for
simulcast as part of a multi-layer encoding (MLE) bitstream.” Claim 1
Appeal 2019-003830
Application 13/348,510

4
further recites “each of the component bitstreams providing an encoded
representation of a different simulcast stream among multiple simulcast
streams,” and in turn, “each of the multiple simulcast streams including the
same input video samples.” Claim 1 gives the option that “each of the
component bitstreams” is either (A) “a scalable bitstream having a base layer
and at least one enhancement layer” or (B) “a non-scalable bitstream having
a single layer.” Finally, claim 1 recites that “each of the component
bitstreams is decodable to reconstruct its version of the same input video
samples, independent of decoding of other ones of the component bitstreams
to reconstruct other versions of the same input video samples.” Independent
claims 8 and 21 recite commensurate limitations.
The Examiner relies on Yu for these limitations, finding that Figure 4
of Yu teaches a scalable component bitstream output from 426 and a non-
scalable component bitstream output from 427. Ans. 13. The Examiner
emphasizes that claim 1 expressly includes an option that each component
bitstream is either scalable or non-scalable. Id.
An excerpted portion of Yu’s Figure 4 is reproduced below.

Figure 4 of Yu illustrates an exemplary encoder 420 that transforms
an input signal and splits it into perceptually relevant coefficients (which go
to scalable coder 426) and perceptually irrelevant coefficients (which go to
Appeal 2019-003830
Application 13/348,510

5
non-scalable coder 427). Yu ¶¶ 30, 33. “The two groups of data are then
coded by their respective coders and combined onto a scalable bit stream
429 by use of a multiplexer 428.” Id. ¶ 33.
Appellant argues that “the non-scalably-coded data in Yu is an
enhancement layer for the single scalable bitstream (429)” and “cannot be
decoded by itself to reconstruct a version of the input signal, since the non-
scalably-coded data includes only perceptually irrelevant coefficients.”
Appeal Br. 14.
We agree with Appellant. The cited combination of references must
teach or suggest all limitations. If the output of scalable coder 426 is a base
layer and the output of non-scalable coder 427 is an enhancement layer, then
there are not multiple component bitstreams as required by the claim. Yet
even if we treat the output of scalable coder 426 as a first component
bitstream and the output of non-scalable code 427 as a second component
bitstream, claim 1 would still require that “each of the component bitstreams
is decodable to reconstruct its version of the same input video samples,
independent of decoding of other ones of the component bitstreams to
reconstruct other versions of the same input video samples.” In Yu,
however, the scalable coder 426 is provided only the perceptually relevant
coefficients and the non-scalable coder 427 is provided only the perceptually
irrelevant coefficients. Yu ¶ 33, Fig. 4. The Examiner has not explained
sufficiently whether or why the scalable output and non-scalable output are
each independently decodable to reconstruct each bitstream’s version of the
same input video samples. See Ans. 4.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of independent claims 1,
8, and 21, and their dependent claims 2–7, 9–13, and 22–30.
Appeal 2019-003830
Application 13/348,510

6
OUTCOME
The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 7–11,
21–24, 27–30
103(a) Kato, Yu, Burazerovic,
Boyce, Chen IEEE
1–4, 7–11,
21–24, 27–30
5, 25 103(a) Kato, Yu, Burazerovic,
Boyce, Chen IEEE,
Sievers
5, 25
6, 26 103(a) Kato, Yu, Burazerovic,
Boyce, Chen IEEE,
Chen ’170
6, 26
12, 13 103(a) Kato, Yu, Burazerovic,
Boyce, Chen IEEE,
Jang, Kang
12, 13
Overall
Outcome
1–13, 21–30
REVERSED