NXP B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 21, 2020

14324104 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 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.
14/324,104 07/04/2014 Yan Li LSLD-PM18035NDUS 2323
140931 7590 09/21/2020
FirstIPR
7540 Wright Dr
Frisco, TX 75035
EXAMINER
BECKER, JOSEPH W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2020 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):
admin@firstipr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Ex parte YAN LI, XIABO LIU, and JIALI CHENG

Appeal 2019-003513
Application 14/324,104
Technology Center 2400

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–12, 14, and 15, which are all of the
pending claims in the application. Appeal Br. 14–17 (Claims App.). 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.
Appeal 2019-003513
Application 14/324,104

2
REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
Appellant does not identify a real party in interest in either its Appeal
Brief or its Reply Brief. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(i) (2018), we
assume that the named inventors are the real party in interest. We further
note that Goodix Technology (HK) Company, Limited has been identified as
the assignee of the entire right, title, and interest in the ‘104 application.
Statement Under 37 C.F.R. 3.73(c), May 6, 2020.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention generally relates to deblocking filtering during
video decoding. Spec. 1:5. In particular, it relates to deblocking for videos
that have been encoded using deblocking within the prediction loop at the
encoder. Id. at 1:5–7. For videos that have been encoded using the H.264
video standard, an H.264-conformant decoder cannot skip deblocking. Id. at
6:15–19. However, the inventors have recognized that “more significant
blocking artefacts tend to occur in intra-coded blocks than inter-coded
blocks,” and thus it is advantageous to concentrate processing power on the
intra-coded blocks rather than all of the block boundaries. Id. at 6:9–12.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, with the limitation at issue on
appeal emphasized in italics:
1. A method of decoding a video comprising a plurality of
frames, each of which was encoded in a plurality of blocks of
pixels, wherein an encoder used a predictive algorithm with
deblocking inside a prediction loop, a first deblocking filter was
applied by the encoder at boundaries between adjacent blocks,
and an output of the first deblocking filter was used to provide a
reference frame for the predictive algorithm, the decoding
method comprising:
Appeal 2019-003513
Application 14/324,104

3
reconstructing a frame of the video to produce a
reconstructed frame;
applying a second deblocking filter macroblock by
macroblock in raster-scan order only at boundaries between
macroblocks for both luminance and chrominance components
in the reconstructed frame; and
skipping deblocking-filtering at other block-boundaries
m the reconstructed frame, even though deblocking was applied
at those block-boundaries by the encoder.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.).
Independent claim 9 recites a method of decoding a video in
conformance with the H.264 standard, comprising limitations similar to
those in claim 1. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). Independent claim 14
recites a computer-readable medium having instructions for the method of
claim 1, and independent claim 15 recites a video decoding apparatus
comprising structure configured to perform the functions of claim 1. Id. at
16. Dependent claims 2–12, 14, and 15 each incorporate the limitations of
claim 1. Id. at 13–17. Claim 13 was cancelled during prosecution. Id. at
16.
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
He US 2008/0137752 Al June 12, 2008
Avadhanam et al.
(Avadhanam)
US 2009/0304085 Al Dec. 10, 2009
Ikeda US 2014/0112396 Al Apr. 24, 2014
Fu et al. (Fu) US 2014/0328389 A1 Nov. 6, 2014

Appeal 2019-003513
Application 14/324,104

4
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–7, 9–12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over the combination of Avadhanam, He, and Ikeda.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the
combination of Avadhanam, He, Ikeda, and Fu.

OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s obviousness rejections (Final Act.
5–9, Ans. 10–11) in light of Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has
erred (Appeal Br. 6–10, Reply Br. 1–4). We are not persuaded by
Appellant’s contention of Examiner error in rejecting claims 1–7, 9–12, 14,
and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §103. We begin with claim 1.
Appellant contends that the Examiner errs in finding Ikeda teaches or
suggests the claimed “applying a second deblocking filter macroblock by
macroblock in raster-scan order only at boundaries between macroblocks for
both luminance and chrominance components in the reconstructed frame.”
Appeal Br. 6.
The Examiner finds Ikeda teaches this limitation in the following
manner:
Fig. 2: deblocking filtering unit 24; Fig. 9: detailed deblocking
filtering unit; 0183: the filter controller 246 includes a line
boundary determining unit 2461. The line boundary
determining unit 2461 determines whether a boundary is a line
boundary (for example, inter-LCU line boundary) in respective
block units in which the process is sequentially performed in a
raster scan direction and outputs the determination results to the
filter operation unit 245; 0168-9: Luminance Component
Filtering; 0173: filtering of chrominance components.
Appeal 2019-003513
Application 14/324,104

5
Ans. 5. The Examiner further clarifies that Ikeda mentions a “First
Embodiment of Deblocking Filtering Unit,” that the filtering of boundaries
is described in paragraph 183, and that deblocking is commonly known to
sharpen the boundaries of blocks. Ans. 10.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has unreasonably broadened the
claim language and cited Ikeda’s deblocking filtering unit without
addressing the “macroblock by macroblock in raster-scan order only at
boundaries . . . for both . . . components.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant argues,
“the claimed deblocking filter is applied at boundaries VLE1 and HLE1 of
the luminance component of the macroblock and at boundaries VCE1 and
HCE1 of the chrominance component of the macroblock.” Id. at 6–7.
Appellant cites to a “specific definition” in the Specification that VLE1,
HLE1, VCE1, and HCE1 are the boundaries between macroblocks. Reply
Br. 3 (citing Spec. 12: 7–8). Appellant further emphasizes that “vertical and
horizontal boundaries (VLE1, HLE1) between blocks in the luminance
components, as disclosed on lines 31–32 of page 11 and lines 1-2 of page
12, are filtered, as well as vertical and horizontal boundaries (VCE1, HCE1)
between blocks in the chrominance components.” Id. Appellant argues that
Ikeda teaches the use of line boundary detecting unit 242, not boundaries
between macroblocks for both luminance and chrominance components in
the reconstructed frame. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant argues that Ikeda’s
specific example of filtering at the inter-LCU boundary would not be viewed
by a person having ordinary skill in the art as equivalent to filtering only at
the claimed boundaries. Id.
Appeal 2019-003513
Application 14/324,104

6
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Ikeda’s filtering at
the inter-LCU boundary is not equivalent to the claimed boundary filtering
because Ikeda’s filtered boundaries are not boundaries between
macroblocks. Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues that the claimed macroblocks
are described in the Specification as blocks having boundaries in luminance
and chrominance components. Id. The Examiner finds Ikeda to filter at
inter-LCU boundaries, which the Examiner equates to filtering at
macroblock boundaries. We agree with this finding because Ikeda states,
“the term block or macroblock also includes a coding unit (CU).” Ikeda
¶443. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Ikeda teaches filtering
at inter-macroblock boundaries. The Examiner has pointed to Ikeda’s
description, in its discussion of filtering at line boundaries, of luminance
component filtering separate from chrominance component filtering. See
Ikeda ¶¶ 169–173. In its discussion of such filtering, Ikeda provides
different mathematical formulas for luminance filtering (Mathematical
formulas 1–4) from those for chrominance filtering (Mathematical formulas
5, 6). Id. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Ikeda
teaches or suggests applying filters at the boundaries between macroblocks
for both luminance and chrominance components.
With respect to Appellant’s reliance on a “specific,” i.e., a special,
definition of macroblock in the Specification at page 12, lines 7–8, we do
not find the cited section of the Specification inconsistent with the
Examiner’s application of Ikeda. Claim 1 requires that filtering be applied
“at boundaries between macroblocks for both luminance and chrominance
components.” We agree that the cited sections of Ikeda, for the reasons
Appeal 2019-003513
Application 14/324,104

7
discussed above and by the Examiner, teach such a limitation. To the extent
that Appellant argues that claim 1 should be read as filtering at luminance
macroblock boundaries and at chrominance macroblock boundaries, we are
not persuaded that the claim requires such a reading, or that the Specification
supports such a reading. The Specification does not clearly support
Appellant’s alleged special definition of macroblock. To provide a special
definition of a term that departs from the clear and ordinary meaning of a
term requires notice of the change in meaning with “reasonable clarity,
deliberateness, and precision.” See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed.
Cir. 1994). Appellant’s alleged special definition is in a section described as
an embodiment of the invention, and does not clearly apply to the entire
scope of claim 1. Spec. 10:28–30 (“The functioning of the deblocking filter
according to embodiments of the invention will be described in detail later
below.”). Furthermore, Appellant’s Specification describes a single
macroblock having both a luminance component 200a and a chrominance
component 200b, not a macroblock(s) defined by boundaries of luminance
and chrominance components. Spec. 11:21–28. Based upon a reading of the
Specification as a whole, Appellant has not persuaded us that the
macroblock boundaries of Ikeda, for which luminance and chrominance
components are separately filtered, do not teach or suggest the claimed
application of a filter “at boundaries between macroblocks for both
luminance and chrominance components.”
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Claims
2–7, 9–12, 14, and 15 are rejected under the same grounds of rejection as
claim 1. Appellant argues claims 4–7, 9–12, 14, and 15 on the same
Appeal 2019-003513
Application 14/324,104

8
reasoning as for claim 1, and we treat those claims as falling with claim 1.
37 C.F.R. § 41.63(c)(1)(iv)(2018). Consequently, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 4–7, 9–12, 14, and 15.
Claim 2 adds the further limitation of “using the reconstructed
reference frame in the predictive algorithm to reconstruct another frame.”
With respect to claim 2, Appellant argues that Avadhanam discloses that the
“deblocking frame also facilitates motion prediction, since the deblocked
frame is used as the reference frame,” but not “using the reconstructed
reference frame in the predictive algorithm to reconstruct another frame”
as claimed. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant argues that the Examiner has not
pointed to any teaching of the applied references, either express or inherent,
for that limitation.
The Examiner finds Avadhanam to teach a deblocked frame used as a
reference frame. Final Act. 7; Ans. 11. The Examiner further finds that
“reference frames are commonly known to be used to reconstruct other
frames using motion prediction as parts of a reference frame are used to
reconstruct new frames where there are similarities between the frames
saving on data that needs to be sent and a central component of video
compression.” Ans. 11 (emphasis omitted).
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown
Avadhanam to teach the claimed step of using the reference frame to
reconstruct another frame, either expressly or inherently. However, in the
Answer, the Examiner finds that it is known in the art to perform such a use,
providing a reasoned explanation in support of that finding. Ans. 11. Such a
finding is permissible where the finding is “capable of such instant and
Appeal 2019-003513
Application 14/324,104

9
unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute.” In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d
1088, 1091 (CCPA 1970). Such a finding has been found to be appropriate
where it is supported by other references of record, or where there is nothing
in the record to contradict it. See In re Soli, 317 F.2d 941, 945-46, (CCPA
1963) (accepting the examiner’s assertion that the use of “a control is
standard procedure throughout the entire field of bacteriology” because it
was readily verifiable and disclosed in references of record not cited by the
Office); In re Chevenard, 139 F.2d 711, 713 (CCPA 1943) (accepting the
examiner’s finding that a brief heating at a higher temperature was the
equivalent of a longer heating at a lower temperature where there was
nothing in the record to indicate the contrary and where the applicant never
demanded that the examiner produce evidence to support his statement).
While Appellant argues that this teaching is not found in the applied
references, Appellant does not argue that the Examiner’s finding is
inaccurate or unsupported in the art. Appeal Br. 8. To the contrary,
Appellant’s Specification describes the H.264 video coding standard, shown
in Figure 1, as including a step of using prediction error and a previously
decoded frame to result in a reconstructed frame. Spec. 9:6 (“Fig. 1 is a
block diagram of a H.264 decoder”); 10:1–13. We further note that
Avadhanam contemplates using “standard video codecs such as . . . H.264,”
in the section cited by the Examiner for the rejection of claim 2.
Avadhanam ¶ 5; see also Avadhanam ¶¶ 16 (“[Figure 8] uses the same
terminology as described in: Overview of the U.264/AVC Video Coding
Standard”), 37 (“particular reference is made herein to the H.264-AVC
video compression standard”), 60 (“the following description provides
Appeal 2019-003513
Application 14/324,104

10
several non-limiting examples and methods for adaptively controlling the
deblocking complexity for the H.264-AVC standard”). Thus, Appellant has
not pointed to anything in the record to contradict the Examiner’s finding,
and there is evidence as to the use of a previously decoded (reference) frame
to create a reconstructed frame in the H.264 video coding standard, used
Avadhanam. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2.
Claim 3 further comprises “skipping deblocking-filtering for block-
boundaries within at least one of the two macroblocks.” Appellant argues
that the Examiner’s citation to paragraph 61 and Table 1 of Avadhanam,
without explanation, does not teach or suggest the claimed limitation.
Appeal Br. 9. Appellant further argues that although the Examiner presents
a hypothetical in which certain border strengths (BS=0) would cause the
filtering to be skipped, the Examiner has not shown Avadhanam would
necessarily skip filtering for block boundaries within at least one of the two
macroblocks. Id.
As discussed for claim 1, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Avadhanam teaches or suggests filtering at boundaries between
macroblocks. The Examiner has further relied upon He to teach or suggest
skipping deblocking-filtering at other block boundaries, through “adaptively
disabling deblock filtering based on a content characteristic of the video
information and also based on power savings considerations).” Ans. 4–5
(citing He ¶ 35). The Examiner further relies on Avadhanam’s teaching of
different boundary strength (“BS”) values depending on whether one the
blocks is “Intra” (Table 1), and where filtering takes place only if certain
conditions are met (paragraph 62). Ans. 11.
Appeal 2019-003513
Application 14/324,104

11
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Appellant argues that
Avadhanam does not necessarily teach that filtering will be skipped for
block boundaries within a macroblock. However, the Examiner has pointed
to teachings of Avadhanam that discuss whether to filter based on the “Intra”
status of the block. Avadhanam’s example of “a line of four pixels each in
the interior of two 4x4 blocks” having a block edge between two of the
pixels states that certain conditions will cause no filtering to occur for non-
zero BS values. Avadhanam ¶ 62. Thus, Avadhanam provides support for
the Examiner’s findings. Appellant has not explained how these cited
sections lack a teaching or suggestion of skipping filtering for block
boundaries within the interior of a macroblock. In view of the Examiner’s
cited sections of Avadhanam, we are not persuaded that Avadhanam does
not teach or suggest skipping filtering for block boundaries within the
interior of a macroblock. Consequently, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 3.
Claim 8, rejected over Avadhanam, He, and Ikeda as applied to claim
1, and further in view of Fu, is argued to be non-obvious upon the same
arguments made against the rejection of claim 1. We have found those
arguments unpersuasive. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the
rejection of claim 8, and sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8.

CONCLUSION
For the above-described reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1–12, 14, and 15 as being obvious over the applied references
under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Appeal 2019-003513
Application 14/324,104

12
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).

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Grounds Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9–
12, 14, 15
103 Avadhanam, He,
Ikeda

8 103 Avadhanam, He,
Ikeda, Fu

Overall
Outcome
1–12, 14, 15

AFFIRMED