QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 31, 2022

2021000558 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2022)

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. 14/449,034 07/31/2014 Ying Chen 1010-900US02/112856C1 3167 15150 7590 01/31/2022 Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A. 1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100 Woodbury, MN 55125 EXAMINER ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/31/2022 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): ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YING CHEN, MARTA KARCZEWICZ, and YE-KUI WANG Appeal 2021-000558 Application 14/449,034 Technology Center 2400 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Qualcomm Incorporated. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-000558 Application 14/449,034 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is directed to “techniques for coding video data . . . where a picture size for a group of pictures in the video sequence may be coded based on an aligned coding unit size for the video sequence.” Spec. ¶ 6. This appeal is related to a prior appeal (2018-000980) of the same application, decided July 2, 2018 (we refer to our decision in the prior appeal as the “Prior Decision”).2 Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 12-14, 16, 17, and 19-22 are pending; claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent. Appeal Br. 30-39. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (emphasis added): 1. A method of encoding video data comprising: determining a largest coding unit (LCU) size for a video sequence comprising a plurality of pictures, each of the plurality of pictures having a width and a height; partitioning each of the plurality of pictures into largest coding units (LCUs) of the LCU size, each of the LCU s corresponding to a root of a respective quadtree data structure; partitioning the LCUs into respective coding units using the respective quadtree data structure, each of the coding units corresponding to a respective node of the respective quadtree data structure, and each of the coding units including syntax elements defining prediction data and residual data for a plurality of samples of the corresponding coding unit, the plurality of pictures being encoded using a plurality of different coding unit sizes, the plurality of different coding unit sizes including at least three coding unit sizes between 4x4 pixels and 64x64 pixels; determining picture-specific smallest coding unit sizes for the plurality of pictures included in the video sequence, 2 Appellant failed to identify the prior appeal as being related. See Appeal Br. 2. Appellant and Appellant’s counsel are reminded of the duty to identify related “prior and pending appeals.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(ii). Appeal 2021-000558 Application 14/449,034 3 determining the picture-specific smallest coding unit sizes comprising determining that at least two of the picture-specific smallest coding unit sizes are different; determining a smallest coding unit size for the video sequence as a minimum of the picture-specific smallest coding unit sizes, the smallest coding unit size being smaller than the LCU size and being equal to or larger than 4x4 pixels; determining a width multiple of the smallest coding unit size that, when multiplied by the smallest coding unit size, yields the width of the plurality of pictures; determining a height multiple of the smallest coding unit size that, when multiplied by the smallest coding unit size, yields the height of the plurality of pictures; encoding, into a video bitstream, the respective quadtree data structures, comprising encoding, only for coding units having a size greater than the smallest coding unit size, split flags of the quadtree data structures representing whether the coding units corresponding to the quadtree data structures are partitioned into smaller coding units; encoding the smallest coding unit size and the LCU size in a sequence parameter set (SPS) in the video bitstream for the video sequence, comprising encoding a logarithmically encoded value for a first syntax element of the SPS representing the smallest coding unit size and encoding a logarithmically encoded value for a second syntax element of the SPS representing the LCU size; encoding the width multiple of the smallest coding unit size in a third syntax element of the SPS in the video bitstream; encoding the height multiple of the smallest coding unit size in a fourth syntax element of the SPS in the video bitstream; and encoding the coding units of the plurality of pictures, each of the coding units having one of the plurality of different coding unit sizes, such that a first coding unit of the coding units has a first size of the plurality of different coding unit sizes and a second coding unit of the coding units has a second, different size of the plurality of different coding unit sizes, and encoding the coding units comprising encoding, for each of the coding units, the syntax elements defining the prediction data and the residual Appeal 2021-000558 Application 14/449,034 4 data for the plurality of samples of the corresponding coding units. References and Rejections3 Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 12-14, 16, 17, and 19-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being patent ineligible. Final Act. 11. Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 12-14, 16, 17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin (US 2006/0072669 A1; Apr. 6, 2006) in view of Huang (US 2012/0106652 A1; May 3, 2012). Final Act. 19. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). As an initial matter, we note the issues before us-patent eligibility and obviousness over Lin in view of Huang-are substantially similar to the issues decided in the Prior Decision. See Prior Decision 3; Final Act. 3-4, 6, 11. We do not further address the points decided in the Prior Decision. See Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP) §§ 706.03(w), 706.07(h)(XI)(A) (“In addition to the res judicata effect of a Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences decision in an application (see MPEP § 706.03(w)), a Board decision in an application is the ‘law of the case,’ and is thus controlling in that application and any subsequent, related application.”). To the extent Appellant’s arguments include issues not 3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. See Ans. 3. Appeal 2021-000558 Application 14/449,034 5 decided in the Prior Decision, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. I. 35 U.S.C. § 101 The Examiner determines claim 1 is patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, pursuant to the revised guidance on the application of § 101 issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) (“Guidance”). See Final Act. 11-19; MPEP §§ 2103-2106.07(c), Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020). Appellant argues the Examiner’s eligibility rejection is in error. See Appeal Br. 12. Specifically, Appellant contends claim 1 is patent eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Guidance, because the claim “achieve[s] an improvement to the operation of a video coding device and to the technological field of video coding.” Id. Appellant contends: By encoding a smallest coding unit size and multiples of the smallest coding unit size as a width and a height of a plurality of pictures in a video sequence, claim 1 achieves an improvement over previous techniques of signaling width and height as a multiple of a largest coding unit. That is, when width and height are signaled as a multiple of a largest coding unit, a picture to be decoded may include a large number of pixels that need to be padded, which consumes excess processor resources and impacts battery life in a video coding device. Appeal Br. 12, 13. We are not persuaded the Examiner’s patent eligibility rejection is in error. The Examiner finds claim 1 does not provide a technical improvement, as the “prior art need not perform padding or include pixels in need of padding,” and, in any event, the “prior art would be even better than the claimed application.” Ans. 6. Appellant fails to show this is incorrect: Appeal 2021-000558 Application 14/449,034 6 Appellant’s argument relies on benefits relating to fewer “padding pixels” (see Appeal Br. 13), but neither the claim nor the Specification discusses padding. See Prior Decision 7; MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) (“if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology”); Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Neither the protocol nor the selection signals are claimed, precluding their contribution to the inventive concept determination.”). Nor does Appellant sufficiently identify the claimed additional elements or otherwise show the Examiner errs in determining “the additional elements[] merely include[] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use[] a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. coding video data).” Final Act. 14. That is, Appellant’s arguments essentially rely on the recited abstract idea, itself (see Final Act. 11), and do not show the recited additional elements integrate that abstract idea into a practical application. See, e.g., Voit Techs., LLC v. Del-Ton, Inc., 757 F. App’x 1000, 1003-04 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Although Voit alleges the method of the ’412 patent ‘improves the efficiency of transmitting’ high resolution data, Appellant’s Br. 10, we have recognized that claims directed to ‘improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ are insufficient to demonstrate an inventive concept.”) (quoting Intellectual Appeal 2021-000558 Application 14/449,034 7 Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. II. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) A. Independent Claim 1 Appellant argues the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1 is in error: Lin in view of Huang fails to disclose or suggest, “encoding the width multiple of the smallest coding unit size in a third syntax element of the SPS in the video bitstream,” and “encoding the height multiple of the smallest coding unit size in a fourth syntax element of the SPS in the video bitstream,” per Appellant’s claim 1. Appeal Br. 16. Appellant contends “Lin merely indicates . . . the width and height, respectively, of a picture ‘in units of 2 pixels,’” which “is not a ‘smallest coding unit size for a video sequence’ per Appellant’s claim 1.” Id. at 17. Appellant further asserts an artisan of ordinary skill would not “modify the techniques of Lin regarding signaling coded width and coded height elements to instead signal these elements in the sequence parameter set of Huang, because the elements of the sequence parameter set of Huang have nothing to do with signaling a picture size.” Reply Br. 9. Appellant does not persuade us the Examiner’s combination fails to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1. See Final Act. 6. Particularly, Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s finding that Huang teaches the claim feature of encoding in a sequence parameter set. Final Act. 23-24, 26-27; Ans. 8; Huang Fig. 1, ¶ 37 (“FIG. 6 illustrates an example to convey Appeal 2021-000558 Application 14/449,034 8 the choices for flexible slice structure in the sequence parameter set.”). Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding one of ordinary skill would have combined Lin’s smallest coding unit teachings4 with Huang’s video signaling “feature in the context of video coding,” in the manner claimed. Final Act. 26. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)), and is not “compelled to adopt every single aspect of [a reference’s] teaching without the exercise of independent judgment” (Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Appellant argues Huang’s SPS has nothing to do with a picture size, but does not show error in the Examiner’s rationale or otherwise explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have combined the prior art teachings, using the exercise of independent judgment. As we stated previously, “we do not find the Examiner’s combination of Lin and Huang ‘represented an unobvious step over the prior art.’ Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007).” Prior Decision 12. We see nothing in the present appeal to persuade us of error in that prior finding. In the Reply Brief, Appellant raises new arguments. See, e.g., Reply Br. 7 (“[O]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Lin to be teaching away from using a macroblock size.”), 10 (“[T]he value of this syntax element represents an absolute smallest coding unit that is possible, 4 See Prior Decision 11 (“Appellants do not show that the claimed ‘smallest coding unit,’ in light of the Specification, is distinguishable from Lin’s teaching of ‘resolution being a multiple of a ma[]croblock (16 pixel), sub- macroblock (8 pixel), a pixel itself, 2-pixel units, ‘or other sets of pixels.’”). Appeal 2021-000558 Application 14/449,034 9 as opposed to a smallest coding unit for a video sequence” and “[t]he Examiner also erred in equating ‘macroblocks’ with ‘coding units.’”). These arguments could have been-but were not-raised in the Appeal Brief. See Final Act. 19-27. Thus, Appellant’s new arguments are not timely raised, and will not be considered. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2); see also Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473-74 (BPAI 2010) (informative opinion). Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments fail to persuade us that the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of independent claim 1 is in error. We sustain this rejection. B. Dependent Claim 21 Appellant argues “Lin in view of Huang fails to disclose or suggest, ‘the first syntax element being a log2_min_coding_block_size_minus3 syntax element, and the second syntax element being a log2_diff_max_min_coding_block_size syntax element,’ per Appellant’s claim 21.” Appeal Br. 26. Particularly, Appellant contends “[o]ne can readily see that FIG. 1 of Huang makes no mention whatsoever of a log2_min_coding_block_size_minus3 syntax element nor of a log2_diff_max_min_coding_block_size syntax element, per claim 21.” Id. at 27. At best, Appellant’s argument relies on a recitation of the exact terminology of the claim; however, Appellant has not presented any argument relating to the claimed structure or functionality, itself. See id.; Ans. 10; see Teva Pharm. Indus. Ltd. v. AstraZeneca Pharms. LP, 661 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“The prior inventor does not need to . . . . conceive of its invention using the same words as the patentee would later Appeal 2021-000558 Application 14/449,034 10 use to claim it.”); cf. Google LLC v. Oracle Am., Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1183, 1196 (2021) (“courts . . . say, in shorthand form, that, unlike patents, which protect novel and useful ideas, copyrights protect ‘expression’ but not the ‘ideas’ that lie behind it”). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner errs in finding Huang teaches or suggests these limitations. See Ans. 10-11; Huang Fig. 1, ¶ 37. We sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 21. C. Dependent Claim 22 Appellant argues: Lin in view of Huang fails to disclose or suggest, “signaling a cropping window value in the SPS, the cropping window value representing a number of pixels to be cropped from at least one of a right boundary or a bottom boundary of the plurality of pictures to produce cropped pictures for display,” per claim 22. Appeal Br. 28. Particularly, Appellant contends “the quoted and cited portions of Lin, and the entirety of Lin, are completely devoid of any disclosure whatsoever of ‘signaling a cropping window value in the SPS.’” Id. As discussed above with respect to claim 1, the Examiner relies on Huang to teach signaling in the SPS. See Ans. 11; Huang Fig. 1, ¶¶ 32, 33, 37. Accordingly, Appellant’s individual attack on Lin fails to persuade us the Examiner’s rejection, based on the combination of Lin and Huang, is in error. See Ans. 11. We sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of dependent claim 22. Appeal 2021-000558 Application 14/449,034 11 CONCLUSION We sustain the Examiner’s eligibility and obviousness rejections of independent claim 1, and the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claims 21 and 22. Appellant advances no further substantive arguments for the remaining claims. See App. Br. 13, 19, 22, 26. Thus, we sustain the eligibility and obviousness rejection of claims 1-4, 7, 8, 12-14, 16, 17, and 19-22 for the reasons discussed above. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-4, 7, 8, 12-14, 16, 17, 19-22 101 Eligibility 1-4, 7, 8, 12-14, 16, 17, 19-22 1-4, 7, 8, 12-14, 16, 17, 19-22 103(a) Lin, Huang 1-4, 7, 8, 12-14, 16, 17, 19-22 Overall Outcome 1-4, 7, 8, 12-14, 16, 17, 19-22 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