QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 20, 2021

2020002371 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 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.
14/743,613 06/18/2015 Ye-Kui Wang 145689U3 (603959) 1832
156222 7590 07/20/2021
Polsinelli/Qualcomm
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
EXAMINER
NIRJHAR, NASIM NAZRUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/20/2021 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
qcom@polsinelli.com
uspt@polsinelli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YE-KUI WANG, FNU HENDRY, and
ADARSH KRISHNAN RAMASUBRAMONIAN
Appeal 2020-002371
Application 14/743,613
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, THU A. DANG, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, 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, 3, 4–9, 11–17, 19–23, and 25–28.
See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “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 2020-002371
Application 14/743,613
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention relates to selectively signaling different
numbers of video signal information syntax structures in a parameter set.
Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:

1. A method of decoding video data, the method comprising:
accessing an encoded video bitstream encoded according
to a first coding protocol, the encoded video bitstream including
a plurality of layers, one or more layer sets, and a video
parameter set defining parameters of the encoded video
bitstream, wherein a layer set includes a set of layers from the
plurality of layers;
determining a syntax element indicative of a number of
video signal information syntax structures included in the video
parameter set is not present in the video parameter set, wherein a
video signal information syntax structure includes at least one or
more of color characteristic information or video format
information used in preparing one or more decoded pictures of
the encoded video bitstream for output, and wherein a separate
video signal information syntax structure is assigned to each
layer included in the encoded video bitstream;
determining a base layer is to be received from an external
source; and
determining, when the syntax element is determined not to
be present in the video parameter set, the number of video signal
information syntax structures included in the video parameter set
to be equal to a maximum number of the plurality of layers of the
encoded video bitstream minus a value, wherein the value is
equal to one when the base layer is to be received from the
external source such that one less video signal information
syntax structure is determined to be included in the video
parameter set.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2020-002371
Application 14/743,613
3

PRIOR ART REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Jianle Joint Collaborative
Team on Video Coding
(JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG
16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC
JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11
16th Meeting: San Jose:
JCTVC-P1008_v4
Title: High efficiency
coding (HEVC)
scalable extensions
Draft 5
Jan. 9–17, 2014
Bugdayci US 2014/0092978 A1 Apr. 3, 2014
Deshpande
(Deshpande 227)
US 2016/0227227 A1 Aug. 4, 2016
Deshpande
(Deshpande 160)
US 2017/0150160 A1

May 25, 2017

REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17, 19 and 23, 25 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande 227, in view of
Deshpande 160. Final Act. 9.
Claims 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
being unpatentable over Deshpande 227 and Deshpande 160, further in view
of Bugdayci. Final Act. 16.
Claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 21, 22, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande 227 and Deshpande 160, further
in view of Jianle. Final Act. 18.
Appeal 2020-002371
Application 14/743,613
4

Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15,
17, 19, 23, 25
103 Deshpande 227,
Deshpande 160
4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 26 103 Deshpande 227,
Deshpande 160,
Bugdayci
5, 6, 13, 14, 21, 22, 27,
28
103 Deshpande 227,
Deshpande 160, Jianle

ANALYSIS
A. Rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 19, 23, and 25 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Deshpande 227 and Deshpande 160
1. “determining a syntax element indicative of a number of video
signal information syntax structures included in the video
parameter set is not present in the video parameter set” (claim 1)
Appellant argues that the combination of Deshpande 227 and
Deshpande 160 “fails to describe or make obvious, at least ‘determining,
when the syntax element [indicative of a number of video signal information
syntax structures included in the video parameter set] is determined not to be
present in the video parameter set, the number of video signal information
syntax structures [that are] included in the video parameter set,’” as recited
in claim 1. Appeal Br. 6. Specifically, Appellant argues that Deshpande
227 “does not describe (1) determining the number of video signal
information syntax structures that are included in a video parameter set
(VPS) (2) when vps_num_video_signal_info_minusl is determined not to be
present.” Id. 7 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner points out that, in Applicant’s Specification, “a syntax
element (e.g., vps_num_video_signal_info_minus1) [] indicates the number
Appeal 2020-002371
Application 14/743,613
5
of video signal information syntax structures to include in the VPS 1302.”
Ans. 16 (quoting Spec. ¶ 158). The Examiner finds that Deshpande 227
teaches “the same syntax element.” Id. In particular, the Examiner finds
that Deshpande 227 also discloses “vps_num _video_signal_info_minus1
plus 1,” wherein, when “vps_num_video _signal_info_minus1 plus 1” is not
present, the value of “vps_num_video _signal_info_minus1” is inferred to
be equal to “vps_max_layers_minus1,” which is an indicator of the number
of layers. Id. at 17 (citing Deshpande 227 ¶ 209). Appellant does not rebut
the Examiner’s Answer by filing a Reply Brief.
We agree with the Examiner. In our analysis, we give the claims their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In
re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). However, we will not read
limitations from the Specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988
F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As acknowledged by Appellant, the Examiner “characterized the
‘vps_num_video_signal_info_minus1’ as the claimed ‘syntax element.’”
Appeal Br. 7; see also Final Act. 10. Further, Applicant’s Specification also
states that a “syntax element” is “vps_num _video_signal_info_minus1.”
Spec. ¶ 158.
Deshpande 227 discloses that, when “video_signal_info_idx_present
_flag” is set to 0, “vps_num_video_signal_info_minus1” is inferred to be
equal to “vps_max_layers_minus1.” Deshpande 227 ¶ 209. Thus,
Deshpande 227 discloses determining the number of video signal
information syntax structures (“vps_num_video_signal_info_minus1”)
based on whether the flag of “video_signal_info_idx_present_flag” is set to
0, wherein, when set to 0, the device determines that “vps_num_video
_signal_info_minus1” is not present, and is therefore, equal to
Appeal 2020-002371
Application 14/743,613
6
“vps_max_layers _minus.” Id. In other words, “vps_num_video signal
info_minus1” is then set to the maximum number of layers or video signal
information structures. Id. That is, Deshpande 227’s “vps_num_video
_signal_info_minus1” specifies the number of “video_signal_info” syntax
structures in the video parameter set (VPS). Id.
Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims,
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive that Deshpande 227 fails to teach
or suggest “determining a syntax element indicative of a number of video
signal information syntax structures included in the video parameter set is
not present in the video parameter set,” as determined by the Examiner.
2. “a number of video signal information syntax structures included
in the video parameter set to be equal to a maximum number of
layers of the encoded video bitstream minus a value, wherein the
value is equal to one when the base layer is to be received from the
external source” (claim 1)
Appellant acknowledges that the maximum value of the range for
Deshpande 160’s syntax elements is “the value of the vps_num_layer_sets
_minus 1 syntax element,” which “specifies the number of layer sets that are
specified by the VPS.” Appeal Br. 9 (citing Deshpande 160 ¶ 107).
However, Appellant argues that the “minus 1” notation of “vps_num_layer
_sets_minus 1” of Deshpande 160 is “not subtracted from ‘a maximum
number of layers’ of a bitstream to determine the ‘number of video signal
information syntax elements’ included in the VPS.” Id. (emphasis omitted).
Appellant also argues that the number of layer sets in a parameter set
is different than the maximum number of layers in a bitstream, as claimed.
Appeal Br. 10. In particular, Appellant argues that “a layer set includes a set
of layers from the plurality of layers.” Id. at 10–11.
Appeal 2020-002371
Application 14/743,613
7
The Examiner finds that Deshpande 160 discloses that “hrd_layer_set
_idx[i] specifies the index, into the list of layer sets specified by the VPS, of
the layer set to which the ith hrd_parameters () syntax structure in the VPS
applies,” wherein, when a base layer is provided externally, “layer ID [i] can
start from 1, because layer ID for base layer i=0 is not needed.” Ans. 18. In
particular, “[w]hen base layer is external detected [] through vps_base_layer
_internal_flag equal to 0, then the represented layers are 9 layers (i=1, i=2,
i=3, i=4, i=5, i=6, i=7, i=8, i=9).” Id. 19. Thus, the Examiner finds that
Deshpande discloses a number of video signal information syntax structures
that is “equal to a maximum number of the plurality of layers of the encoded
video bitstream minus a value, wherein the value is equal to one.” Id.
The Examiner also finds that Deshpande 160’s algorithm for a “layer
set” is “an obvious act” for layer adjustment. Ans. 19. In particular, the
Examiner finds that Deshpande 160 teaches an example in which a bitstream
“may have layers 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4,” wherein “one layer set may include
layers 0, 1, and 2.” Id. The Examiner explains that “both layer[s] and layer
set[s] need to be adjusted when [the] base layer is external.” Id.
We agree with the Examiner. A determination of obviousness does
not require the claimed invention to be expressly suggested by any one or all
of the references. See e.g., Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
As outlined above, in Deshpande 227, when the syntax element
(“vps_num_video_signal_info_minus1”) is not present in the parameter set,
based upon “video_signal_info_idx_present_flag” being set to 0, “vps_num
_video_signal_info_minus1” is set to “vps_max_layers_minus1.” See
Deshpande 227 ¶ 209.
Further, Deshpande 160 discloses that the base layer may be provided
by external means and is signaled that the base layer is provided externally
Appeal 2020-002371
Application 14/743,613
8
by “vps_base_layer_internal_flag” being set to 0. Deshpande 160 ¶ 136. In
Deshpande 160, the number of layer sets is adjusted based upon the value of
“vps_base_layer_internal_flag,” whereby if “vps_base_layer_internal_flag”
is 1, then the starting value of the range of “hrd_layer_set_idx[i]” is set to 0,
and if the “vps_base_layer_internal flag” is 0, then the starting value of the
range of “hrd_layer_set_idx[i]” is set to 1. Id. ¶ 110.
Thus, in Deshpande 160, when “vps_base_layer_internal flag” is
equal to 0, the value of “hrd_layer_set_idx[i]” may be greater than 0.
Deshpande 160 ¶ 110. That is, for example, if the number of layer minus 1
was 10 and “vps_base_layer_internal_flag” was set to 1 denoting that the
base layer is internal to the stream, then the range of layer sets would be
from 0 to 10, but if the number of layer minus 1 was 10 and “vps_base_layer
_internal_flag” was set to 0 denoting that the base layer is external to the
stream, then the range of layer sets would be from 1 to 10. Id.
Accordingly, if the base layer is provided internally, then there would be 11
sets, if the base layer is provided externally, there would be 10 sets. In other
words, when the base layer is provided externally there would be a net
reduction of one.
Furthermore, as set forth in Appellant’s Specification, the base layer
set is comprised of only layer 0 (the base layer). See Spec. Fig. 2. Similarly,
Dehspande 160 discloses that different partitions (sets) may have one or
more layers, wherein partition (set) 1 may be for just layer 0. See
Deshpande 160 ¶ 50. Accordingly, we find that the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art a
reduction in sets (i.e., a reduction in the number of layers) signaled when the
base layer is signaled externally, wherein a set may be comprised of only
one layer (e.g. base layer).
Appeal 2020-002371
Application 14/743,613
9
Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims,
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive that the combination of Deshpande
227 and Deshpande 160 fails to teach or suggest “a number of video signal
information syntax structures included in the video parameter set to be equal
to a maximum number of layers of the encoded video bitstream minus a
value, wherein the value is equal to one when the base layer is to be received
from the external source,” as determined by the Examiner.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 over Deshpande 227 and Deshpande 160. Appellant does not
provide substantive arguments separately for independent claims 9, 17, and
23, and claims 3, 7, 11, 15, 19 and 25 depending respectively from claims 1,
9, 17, and 23. See generally App. Br. Therefore, we also affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17, 19 and 23, 25 over
Deshpande 227 and Deshpande 160.
Appellant also does not provide argument with respect to Bugdayci
and Jianle. See generally App. Br. Accordingly, we also affirm the
rejection of dependent claims 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 26 over Deshpande 227
and Deshpande 160, further in view of Bugdayci; and of dependent claims 5,
6, 13, 14, 21, 22, 27, and 28 over Deshpande 227 and Deshpande 160,
further in view of Jianle.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 4–9, 11–17,
19–23, and 25–28 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Appeal 2020-002371
Application 14/743,613
10
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 7, 9,
11, 14, 15,
17, 19, 23,
25
103 Deshpande 227,
Deshpande 160
1, 3, 7, 9,
11, 14, 15,
17, 19, 23,
25

4, 8, 12, 16,
20, 26
103 Deshpande 227,
Deshpande 160,
Bugdayci
4, 8, 12, 16,
20, 26

5, 6, 13, 14,
21, 22, 27,
28
103 Deshpande 227,
Deshpande 160,
Jianle
5, 6, 13, 14,
21, 22, 27,
28

Overall
Outcome
1, 3–9, 11–
17, 19–23,
25–28

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