QUALCOMM, INCORPORATED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 29, 2020

2019003068 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 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.
13/777,413 02/26/2013 Ye-Kui WANG 1212-334US01/123518 5624
23696 7590 07/29/2020
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
EXAMINER
CHANG, DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2020 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YE-KUI WANT and YING CHEN

Appeal 2019-003068
Application 13/777,413
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, 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, 9, 13, 22, 26, 34, 35, 39, 40, 42–45,
47, and 52–56. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Qualcomm
Incorporated. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003068
Application 13/777,413

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2
Appellant describes the invention as relating to techniques applicable
to video coding standards. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1 is illustrative:
Claim 1. A method of decoding video data, the method
comprising:
receiving one or more video parameter sets (VPSs), wherein
each VPS of the one or more VPSs includes a respective VPS
identification value;
receiving one or more sequence parameter sets (SPSs), wherein
each of the one or more SPSs includes a syntax element with a value
equal to one of the respective VPS identification values;
decoding a supplemental enhancement information (SEI)
message, wherein a payload of the SEI message comprises a vps_id
syntax element, wherein an SEI network abstraction layer (NAL) unit
comprises the SEI message, and no other SEI messages are included
in the SEI NAL unit;
fixed-length decoding, as part of decoding the SEI message and
prior to decoding any other syntax elements in the SEI message, the
vps id syntax element indicating a VPS identification value for an
active VPS of the one or more VPSs, wherein the vps_id syntax
element is fixed-length decoded before any syntax element in the SEI
message is entropy decoded;
entropy decoding, as part of decoding the SEI message, an
entropy-coded syntax element;
decoding the video data based on parameters included in the
active VPS; and
outputting the decoded video data.

2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated March 9, 2018
(“Final Act.”), the Replacement Appeal Brief filed October 9, 2018
(“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Second or Supplemental Answer dated
January 18, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed March 8, 2019 (“Reply
Br.”).
Appeal 2019-003068
Application 13/777,413

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Name Reference Date
Hannuksela US 2004/0228413 A1 Nov. 18, 2004
Fabre et al.
(“Fabre”)

US 2008/0137733 A1 June 12, 2008
Pandit et al.
(“Pandit”)
US 2010/0091881 A1 Apr. 15, 2010
Skupin et al., “Generic HEVC high level syntax for scalability and
adaptation,” Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-
T SG 16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, no. JCTVC-I0217, 9th
Meeting, April 27–May 7, 2012 (“Skupin”).
Thang et al., “Signaling of VPS Activation,” Joint Collaborative Team on
Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC1SC
29/WG11, 10th Meeting, July 11–20, 2012 (“Thang”).
Bross et al., “High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) text specification
draft 9,” Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T
SC16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, 11th Meeting, October 10–19,
2012 (“Bross”).

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
A. Claims 1, 9, 13, 22, 26, 34, 35, 39, 40, 42, 44, and 45 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Fabre in view of Thang and Skupin. Ans. 4.3

3 The Examiner rejection also refers to claim 16, 19–21, 28, 31–33, 37, 38,
and 41. Final Act. 7–8. As Appellant explains, however, those claims have
been cancelled and are not on appeal. Appeal Br. 11.
Appeal 2019-003068
Application 13/777,413

4
B. Claim 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Fabre in view of
Thang, Skupin, and Hannuksela. Id. at 13.
C. Claim 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Fabre in view of
Thang, Skupin, and Pandit. Id. at 14.
D. Claims 52–55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Fabre in view of
Thang, Skupin, and Bross. Id. at 15–16.
E. Claim 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Fabre in view of
Thang, Skupin, Pandit, and Bross. Id. at 18–19.

OPINION
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),
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering the
evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are
not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action
and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellant does not present substantively distinct arguments for any
claim other than claim 1. Appeal Br. 14–19. We therefore limit our
discussion to claim 1. Consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017), all
other claims on appeal stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over Fabre in view of Thang
and Skupin. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that Fabre teaches a method of
Appeal 2019-003068
Application 13/777,413

5
decoding video data including most of claim 1’s recitations. Id. at 4–6
(citing Fabre).
The Examiner finds that Fabre does not disclose “receiving one or
more video parameter sets (VSPs), wherein each VPS of the one or more
VSPs includes a respective VPS identification element,” does not disclose
“wherein a payload of the SEI message comprises a vps_id syntax element,”
does not disclose certain other recitations regarding use of the vps_id
element and decoding, and does not disclose “entropy decoding, as part of
decoding the SEI message, an entropy-coded syntax element.” Id. at 6. The
Examiner finds, however, that Thang teaches a decoding method that
includes, for example, receiving VPSs and a payload of an SEI message
comprising a vps_id syntax element. Id. at 6–7 (citing Thang). The
Examiner determines, for example, that it would have been obvious to
modify Fabre to add the teachings of Thang to “propose simple mechanisms
for activation signaling of VPS used to describe essential information of
‘scalable layers’ that will alleviate burden for any parser and extractor.” Id.
at 7 (citing Thang Abstract).
The Examiner finds that the combination of Fabre and Thang does not
explicitly disclose, for example, “one or more of the SPSs includes a syntax
element with a value equal to one of the respective VPS identification
values” and “fixed-length decoding, part of the decoding the SEI message.”
Id. at 8. The Examiner finds that Skupin teaches these recitations and
concludes that it would have been obvious to further modify Fabre based on
Skupin “to provide devices with the necessary information in an accessible
form, and suitable for signaling adaptation in a straight-forward fashion.” Id.
at 9 (citing Skupin 1).
Appeal 2019-003068
Application 13/777,413

6
Appellant first argues that the combined references do not result in
“fixed-length decoding . . . indicating a VPS identification value for an
active VPS of the one or more VPS” and do not result in “wherein an SEI
network abstraction layer (NAL) unit comprises the SEI message, and no
other SEI messages are included in the SEI NAL unit.” Appeal Br. 12, 14.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner makes detailed
findings as to how the references teach these recitations (Ans. 21–22), and
Appellant does not provide evidence or persuasive argument adequate to
refute the Examiner’s position.
With respect to “fixed-length decoding . . . prior to decoding any other
syntax elements in the SEI message,” the Examiner relied on Skupin to
reach this recitation. Final Act. 11–12. In the Appeal Brief, Appellant did
not provide any persuasive argument why the Examiner’s findings regarding
Skupin were incorrect. Appeal Br. 14 (incorrectly stating, without further
explanation, that “Skupin fails to overcome the above-discussed deficiencies
of Fabre and Thang and is not alleged by the final Office Action to
overcome such deficiencies”). Appellant argues against the Examiner’s
Skupin findings for the first time in the Reply Brief. Reply Br. 5. This is new
argument which could have been but was not presented in the Appeal Brief.
Under regulations governing appeals to the Board, a new argument not
timely presented in the Appeal Brief will not be considered when filed in a
Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why the argument
could not have been presented in the Appeal Brief. See Ex parte Borden, 93
USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010) (informative) as well as 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37 and § 41.41. Because the record contains no such showing, we will
not consider the new argument in the Reply Brief.
Appeal 2019-003068
Application 13/777,413

7
Appellant also argues that a person of skill in the art would not have
modified Fabre to include the vps_id syntax of Thang because doing so
would render Fabre unsatisfactory for its intended purpose by impermissibly
modifying Fabre’s chaptering information. Appeal Br. 12–13. The
Examiner, however correctly explains that a person of skill in the art would
have enhanced Fabre with Thang’s vps_id syntax rather than subtracting
functionality from Fabre. Ans. 23. Appellant responds by arguing that such a
modification would serve no purpose (Reply Br. 4), but Appellant does not
provide evidence or persuasive argument as to why the Examiner’s stated
purpose for combining the relevant teachings is incorrect. Ans. 23.
Appellant further argues that none of the embodiments of Thang
would result in the recitations of claim 1. Appeal Br. 13. The Examiner,
however, persuasively explains that the rejection relies on Fabre and Skupin
to address the features Appellant argues. Ans. 24–25. Appellant’s argument
is unpersuasive because it attacks references individually where the rejection
is based on a combination of references. Cf. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981).
In sum, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection because Appellant’s
arguments do not identify harmful error.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 9, 13, 22,
26, 34, 35,
39, 40, 42,
44, 45
103 Fabre, Thang, Skupin 1, 9, 13,
22, 26, 34,
35, 39, 40,
42, 44, 45

Appeal 2019-003068
Application 13/777,413

8
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
43 103 Fabre, Thang, Skupin,
Hannuksela
43
47 103 Fabre, Thang, Skupin,
Pandit
47
52–55 103 Fabre, Thang, Skupin,
Bross
52–55
56 103 Fabre, Thang, Skupin,
Pandit, Bross
56
Overall
Outcome
1, 9, 13,
22, 26, 34,
35, 39, 40,
42–45, 47,
52–56

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