QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 11, 2020

14656526 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 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.
14/656,526 03/12/2015 Li Zhang 1414-013US01/143963U4 5910
15150 7590 09/11/2020
Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A.
1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
EXAMINER
NOH, JAE NAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/11/2020 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):
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 LI ZHANG, JIANLE CHEN, MARTA KARCZEWICZ, JOEL
SOLE ROJALS, and WOO-SHIK KIM
Appeal 2019-003695
Application 14/656,526
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10, 12–21, 23–25, 27–29, 31–40, 42–

1 We refer to the Specification, filed March 12, 2015 as amended January
19, 2018 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action, mailed May 16, 2018 (“Final
Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed October 19, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer, mailed February 7, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief, filed April
8, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Qualcomm
Incorporated. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003695
Application 14/656,526
2
51, 53, and 54. See Final Act. 3-20.3 Claims 11, 22, 26, 30, 41, and 52 are
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to modifying bit depths in color-space
transform coding. Spec., Title. In video encoded by a combination of (i) a
brightness or luminance (i.e., “luma”, represented by the letter “Y”)
component and (ii) color or chrominance (i.e., “chroma”) components (e.g.,
a blue-difference chroma component Cb and a red-difference chroma
component Cr), the bit depths (i.e., the number of bits) of data representing
the respective luma and chroma components (i.e., Y, Cb and Cr) are made
equal by a bitwise shift operation prior to applying a color-space
transformation (e.g., converting from YCbCr to RGB color-space). See, e.g.,
Claim 1, Spec. ¶ 50. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method of encoding video data, the method comprising:
determining a bit-depth of a luma component of the video
data and a bit-depth of a chroma component of the video data;
in response to the bit-depth of the luma component being
different than the bit depth of the chroma component, modifying
one or both of the bit depth of the luma component and the bit
depth of the chroma component such that the bit depths are equal
comprising performing a bitwise shift operation on the video data
of one or both of the luma component and the chroma component
before applying a color-space transform process; and

3 The listing of claims rejected on page 1 of the Final Action erroneously
includes canceled claim 41 and omits rejected independent claim 42. We
consider the misstatement to constitute harmless error.
Appeal 2019-003695
Application 14/656,526
3
applying the color-space transform process to the modified
video data.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Sato US 2013/0315493 A1 Nov. 28, 2013
Ohgose US 2014/0003515 A1 Jan. 2, 2014
Saxena US 2015/0110181 A1 Apr. 23, 2015
Rabbani et al., “An overview of the JPEG 2000 still image compression
standard”, 17 SIGNAL PROCESSING: IMAGE COMMUNICATION
3–48, (2002) (“Rabbani”)
Kim et al., “Adaptive Residue Transform and Sampling", Document JVT-
K018, JOINT VIDEO TEAM (JVT) OF ISO/IEC MPEG & ITU-T
VCEG(ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 AND ITU-T SG16 Q6), 15 March
2004, pages 1–16 (“Kim”)

REJECTION
Claims 1–3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12–14, 17, 19–21, 23–25, 27–29, 31–33, 36,
38–40, 42–44, 47, 49–51, 53 and 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Rabbani, Kim, and Sato. Final Act. 11–22.4
Claims 4, 5, 15, 16, 34, 35, 45, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Rabbani, Kim, Sato, and Ohgose. Final
Act. 22–25.
Claims 7, 18, 37, and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Rabbani, Kim, Sato, and Saxena. Final Act. 25–27.

4 The listing of claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Rabbani, Kim,
and Sato appearing at page 11 of the Final Action erroneously omits claims
53 and 54 although these claims are included in the rejection narrative at
pages 19–20. We consider the omissions to constitute harmless error.
Appeal 2019-003695
Application 14/656,526
4

STANDARD OF REVIEW
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).
OPINION
Examiner’s Findings
The Examiner finds Rabbani’s description of a JPEG 2000 digital
image encoder teaches the recited steps of claim 1 except (i) Rabbani
processes individual digital images rather than the claimed video data, and
(ii) Rabbani does not disclose performing “a bitwise shift operation on the
video data of one or both of the luma component [e.g., “Y”] and the chroma
component [e.g., “Cb,”, “Cr”] before applying a color-space transform
process” as claimed. Final Act. 12–14, (emphasis omitted). In particular,
the Examiner finds Rabbani’s explanation that “a typical color image would
have three components (e.g., RGB and YCbCr)” and that “sample values for
each component can be . . . integers with a bit-depth in the range of 1–38
bits” teaches “determining a bit-depth of a luma component of the [image]
data and a bit-depth of a chroma component of the [image] data.” Id. at 12,
(emphasis omitted) (citing Rabbani p. 6, § 2). The Examiner finds
Rabbani’s disclosure of a restriction on applying a forward point-wise
intercomponent transformation such that “the components must have
identical bit-depths and dimensions” teaches modifying the luma [e.g., Y]
and chroma components [e.g., Cb,Cr] to have equal bit depths. Id. at 12–13
(citing Rabbani pp. 6–7, § 2.1).
Appeal 2019-003695
Application 14/656,526
5
The Examiner applies Kim for teaching processing video data instead
of Rabbani’s single image data. Id. at 13 (citing Kim p. 1, § 1). According
to the Examiner, “[o]ne would be motivated as one of ordinary skilled in the
art would have recognized that applying color transformation for saving bits
in Rabbani would be equally applicable to video data since video data
comprises of multiple still pictures that are subject to the same benefits
disclosed in Rabbani.” Id. at 14. The Examiner relies on Sato’s shift-to-
right unit for teaching performing a bitwise shift operation on the video data
before applying a color-space transform process. Id. at 14 (citing Sato
¶ 174). The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious “to utilize the
teachings of Sato to bit shift the color components so as to make the bit
depths equal between the components to be transformed when performing
color space transformation in Rabbani-Kim.” Id. at 15.

Appellant’s Contentions and Examiner’s Answer
Appellant contends Rabbani fails to teach modifying the bit depth of
the luma or chroma component of video data to have equal bit depths.
Appeal Br. 9. Appellant argues
Rabbani merely discloses performing a “DC level shift” on the
red, green, and blue color components after the Y, C[b], and Cr
components (or the Y, U, and V components) have been
transformed back into the RGB color space. Rabbani fails to
disclose or suggest “performing a bitwise shift operation on the
video data of one or both of the luma component and the chroma
component before applying a color-space transform process”
(emphasis added), as recited in Appellant’s claim 1.
Id. Appellant argues Rabbini’s restriction requiring components have
identical bit-depths is in connection with a forward point-wise
Appeal 2019-003695
Application 14/656,526
6
intercomponent transform of red, green and blue image components of an
image in RGB color space to YCbCr color space, not the luma (i.e., Y) and
chroma (i.e., Cb, Cr) components in YCbCr color space. Id. According to
Appellant, Rabbini’s removal of a DC shift level after an inverse color
transform evidences that bit depths are only of concern after a
transformation back into RGB components, not prior to the transform while
an image is encoded using luma and chroma components. Id. at 10. In
further support of the argument that Rabbani is concerned only with the bit
depth of RGB components, Appellant directs attention to Rabbani’s
disclosure that “as the result[] of the RCT transform, ‘[t]he Y component has
the same bit-depth as the RGB components while the U and V components
have one extra bit of precision.’” Id. at 11, (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner responds as follows:
The statement in the section 2.1 of Rabbani that the components
in the intercomponent transformation must have identical bit
depth is understood to be a general statement on the color
transformation of images having color components (such as the
RGB or luma chroma components, the most well-known color
components immediately apparent to one of ordinary skilled in
the art), especially since Rabbani’s statement says “One
restriction on applying the intercomponent transformation is that
the components must have identical bit-depth . . . ” and does not
refer to “RGB” components. Just because Rabbani goes on to
describe a specific example of transforming RGB components
does not take away from the general statement as described
above.
Ans. 23.
Appellant replies, further arguing Sato’s shift operation does not teach
modifying the bit-depth in such a way as to cure the argued deficiency of
Kim. . Reply Br. 4. According to Appellant “Sato does not describe a color-
Appeal 2019-003695
Application 14/656,526
7
space transform process at all. Therefore, Sato does not disclose or suggest,
‘performing a bitwise shift operation on the video data of one or both of the
luma component and the chroma component before applying a color-space
transform process,’ per Appellant’s claim 1.” Id. (citing Final Act. 14).

Analysis
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible Examiner error.
We disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Rabbani’s statement “that the
components in the intercomponent transformation must have identical bit
depth is understood to be a general statement on the color transformation of
images having color components” (Ans. 23) as conclusory and not supported
by the evidence. Instead, based on evidence and reasoning proffered by
Appellant, we are persuaded Rabbani’s requirement that video components
have equal bit-depths is disclosed only in connection with RGB, i.e., not in
connection with video coded using luma and chroma components as
claimed. Furthermore, we agree with Appellant that Sato’s shift-to-right
unit that decreases data bit depth, although performing a bitwise shift
operation, does not teach or suggest performing the shift operation before
applying a color-space transformation of luma and chromo video
components. Reply Br. 4.
For the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Rabbni, Kim, and Sato or
the rejection of independent claims 12, 23, 27, 31, and 42 which include
corresponding limitations. Furthermore, we do not sustain the rejections of
dependent claims 2–10 and 53 that depend from claim 1, claims 13–21 and
54 that depend from claim 12, claims 24 and 25 that depend from claim 23,
Appeal 2019-003695
Application 14/656,526
8
claims 28 and 29 that depend from claim 27, claims 32–40 that dependent
from claim 31, and claims 43–51 that depend from claim 42, these
dependent claims standing with their respective base claim.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–10, 12–21, 23–25,
27–29, 31–40, 42–51, 53 and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 6, 8, 9,
10, 12–14, 17,
19–21, 23–25,
27–29, 31–33,
36, 38–40,
42–44, 47,
49–51, 53, 54
103 Rabbani, Kim,
Sato
1–3, 6, 8, 9,
10, 12–14, 17,
19–21, 23–25,
27–29, 31–33,
36, 38–40,
42–44, 47,
49–51, 53, 54
4, 5, 15, 16,
34, 35, 45, 46
103 Rabbani, Kim,
Sato, Ohgose
4, 5, 15, 16,
34, 35, 45, 46
7, 18, 37, 48 103 Rabbani, Kim,
Sato, Saxena
7, 18, 37, 48
Overall
Outcome
1–10, 12–21,
23–25, 27–29,
31–40, 42–51,
53, 54

REVERSED