2018006946 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 2020)

Purvin Bibhas Pandit et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 15, 2020

2018006946 (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. 12/311,481 03/31/2009 Purvin Bibhas Pandit PU060190 8542 24498 7590 07/15/2020 Vincent E. Duffy THOMSON Licensing 19868 Collins Road CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351 EXAMINER PRINCE, JESSICA MARIE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 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): Patricia.Verlangieri@InterDigital.com mike.pugel@eurekovation.com vincent.duffy@technicolor.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte PURVIN BIBHAS PANDIT, YEPING SU, and PENG YIN ____________________ Appeal 2018-006946 Application 12/311,481 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 4. 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, Thompson Licensing DTV is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2018-006946 Application 12/311,481 2 INVENTION The invention relates to memory management operations involving multiview video coding. Spec. 2. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below. 1. A method for memory management of a reference picture used multiview video coding comprising the steps of: storing a first reference picture in a memory where the first reference picture is associated with a memory status and a view, said memory status is selected from long term reference picture, short term reference frame, and non-used for reference; coding a video picture with information which affects the memory status of said stored first reference picture, where the view associated with said first reference picture is different than a view associated with said coded video picture; assigning via memory status change command a status to change, at the same time, the memory status of said first reference picture and all reference pictures with the same view as said first reference picture to a status for said first reference picture selected from: long term reference frame, short term reference frame, and non-used for reference frame for which the stored first reference frame and all stored reference frames of the same view as said first reference picture are deleted from said memory when said stored first reference is assigned the non-used reference status, and a memory status of a second stored reference picture associated with a second view which is different than that of the first reference and the view of a video picture being coded such that said second reference picture is not impacted by said memory status change command. Appeal 2018-006946 Application 12/311,481 3 EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2 The Examiner has rejected claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (US 2010/0260265 A1; publ. Oct. 14, 2010) and Joint Video Team of ISO/IEC MPEG & ITU-T VCEG (13th meeting: Palma de Mallorca, Spain, Oct. 18–22, 2004, hereinafter “JVT”). Final Act. 6–9. The Examiner has rejected claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon, JVT, and Official Notice. Final Act. 9–10. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejections of all of the disputed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant argues the combination of Jeon and JVT do not teach the claim 1 limitation directed to “assigning via memory status change command a status to change, at the same time, the memory status of said first reference picture and all reference pictures with the same view as said first reference picture to a status.” Appeal Br. 9–15. Appellant argues that the paragraphs of Jeon cited by Examiner do not teach this limitation and that the Examiner’s reliance upon Jeon’s teaching of initializing the reference picture priority list does not teach changing status of reference pictures, with the same view, at the same time, as recited in independent 2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed June 28, 2017 (“Appeal Br.”); Final Office Action mailed December 30, 2016 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 31, 2017 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2018-006946 Application 12/311,481 4 claim 1. Appeal Br. 10–11. Appellant states: Initialization, however, is very different than changing status via a memory status change command. Initialization is done at start-up of an operation and sets a list to a specified value. This is distinctly different than a status change, which is an ongoing operation occurring during coding/decoding where one of a plurality of values (long-term reference picture, short-term reference picture, non-used for reference) is selected to assign to a group of all reference frames from a same view, different from the view being coded. Appeal Br. 11. The Examiner cites to paragraph 133 of Jeon as “an explicit teaching of assigning a command to change a status to change at the same time” pointing out that Jeon discusses “managing both of the reference picture list for the inter-view prediction as one reference list, they can be initialized according to an order or simultaneously.” Ans. 3–4. Further, with reference to Appellant’s argument that Jeon’s teaching of initializing does not meet the claimed changing status in response to a status change command, the Examiner states: [t]he Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that to initialize to be clear from previous data in preparation for use. A status change is nothing more than to change the status or condition of something; therefore, using broadest reasonable interpretations, clearing the previous data in preparation for use provides a change in status or condition of the list for use. Thus, in this case, initializing provides a status change for both the reference picture list. Ans. 4. We have reviewed the cited teachings of Jeon and concur with Appellant’s arguments. Claim 1 recites storing a first picture in memory “assigning via memory status change command a status to change, at the Appeal 2018-006946 Application 12/311,481 5 same time, the memory status of said first reference picture and all reference pictures with the same view as said first reference picture.” Thus, the claim identifies that the picture has a status, and a status change command is issued to, at the same time, change the status of that picture and all reference pictures with the same view. The Examiner has not established that Jeon teaches this feature. The step of initializing is a step of providing an initial value, we do not consider the Examiner’s interpretation of this initializing, to clear a previous data in preparation for use, to be reasonable. The Examiner has not cited evidence to support this claim interpretation nor has the Examiner shown that Jeon teaches that the reference picture list had a value prior to being initialized (i.e., that prior data existed to be cleared as would be the case under the Examiner’s interpretation of the term initialize). Accordingly, we do not find that the Examiner has shown that all of the features of independent claim 1 are taught by the combination of Jeon and JVT and we do not sustain the Examiner obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 2. The Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 3 relies upon the combination of Jeon and JVT to teach similar limitations in independent claim 3. Accordingly, we similarly do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 4 for the same reasons as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 2. Appeal 2018-006946 Application 12/311,481 6 CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2 103 Jeon, JVT 1, 2 3, 4 103 Jeon, JVT, Official Notice 3, 4 Overall Outcome 1–4 REVERSED