QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 27, 2021

2020004975 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 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.
15/465,328 03/21/2017 Vijayaraghavan Thirumalai 1414-558US01/ 162613 1301
15150 7590 09/27/2021
Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A.
1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
EXAMINER
BELAI, NAOD W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2021 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
pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VIJAYARAGHAVAN THIRUMALAI,
NATAN HAIM JACOBSON, and
RAJAN LAXMAN JOSHI
Appeal 2020-004975
Application 15/465,328
Technology Center 2400

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

Appeal 2020-004975
Application 15/465,328

2
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 1–7, 9–16, 18–25, and 27, all of the
pending claims.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Summary
The subject matter of Appellant’s application relates to “dynamically
adjusting the maximum [quantization parameter (QP)] for coding blocks of
video data [such that] distortion from quantization may be reduced while
preventing [a coding] buffer unit from overflowing or emptying.” Spec.,
Abstract.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed March 21, 2017 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action, mailed October 4, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Advisory Action mailed
November 20, 2019 (“Advisory Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed February 14,
2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed May 12, 2020 (“Ans.”);
and Reply Brief, filed June 18, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies QUALCOMM Incorporated as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
3 Claims 8, 17, and 26 are cancelled, the subject matter of those dependent
claims having been incorporated into their respective base independent
claims 1, 10, and 19 by the Amendment filed November 1, 2019 and entered
for purposes of the present appeal as indicated by the Advisory Action
mailed November 20, 2019.
Appeal 2020-004975
Application 15/465,328

3
Illustrative Claim
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below
with claim element labels added and a disputed limitation at issue italicized,
illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus for coding video information,
comprising:
[(a)] a buffer unit configured to store coded video
information;
[(b)] a hardware processor configured to:
[(i)] [(A)] determine a buffer fullness of the buffer unit,
[(B)] the buffer fullness being indicative of a ratio between a
number of bits currently occupied in the buffer unit and a
current capacity of the buffer unit;
[(ii)] determine an initial maximum quantization
parameter (QP) value;
[(iii)] determine an adjustment value based at least in part
upon [(A)] the determined buffer fullness of the buffer unit
and [(B)] one or more picture parameters, [(C)] the one or
more picture parameters comprising a compressed bitrate of
the video information to be coded;
[(iv)] adjust the initial maximum QP value using the
determined adjustment value to generate an adjusted
maximum QP value, wherein the adjusted maximum QP
value specifies a maximum QP value that that[4] is selectable
for coding the current block of the video information; and
[(v)] code the current block of video information based
on a QP value to form a video data bitstream for display or

4 This second occurrence of the word “that” appears to be a typographical
error. Appellant should consider making or the Examiner may choose to
require an appropriate correction prior to issuance.
Appeal 2020-004975
Application 15/465,328

4
transmission, in accordance with a restriction that the QP
value cannot exceed the adjusted maximum QP value.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES AND REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–7, 9–16, 18–25, and 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of MacInnis
(US 20140098857 A1, published April 10, 2014) and Ueda
(US 20040022316 A1, published February 5, 2004). Final Act. 3–10.

OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). The Examiner and Appellant focus their findings and
contentions, respectively, on claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 10–19; Ans. 3–16); so
we do as well. Arguments not made are forfeited.5 Unless otherwise
indicated, we adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office Action,
Advisory Action, and the Answer as our own and add any additional
findings of fact for emphasis.

5 See In re Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(“We interpret the Patent Office to be arguing that Google’s failure to raise
its lexicography arguments, inadvertent or not, compels a finding of
forfeiture.”); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019) (“Except as provided for in
§§ 41.41, 41.47 and 41.52, any arguments or authorities not included in the
appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the
present appeal.”).
Appeal 2020-004975
Application 15/465,328

5
The Examiner finds MacInnis’s disclosure of bounded-rate image
compression teaches the majority of limitations of independent claim 1.
Final Act. 3–5 (citing MacInnis ¶¶ 32, 39–42, 84, 104–107, 109; Figs. 1, 2,
7, 9). The Examiner further finds MacInnis teaches the disputed limitation
of claim element (b)(ii)(C) as incorporated into claim 1 from canceled claim
8 and requiring the one or more picture parameters comprise a compressed
bitrate of the video information to be coded (id. at 10 (citing MacInnis
¶¶ 106, 111, 112)). However, the Examiner finds MacInnis does not
explicitly disclose (1) buffer fullness being indicative of a ratio between (i) a
number of bits currently occupied in the buffer unit and (ii) a current
capacity of the buffer unit (claim 1’s elements (b)(i)(B)) (id. at 5), and (2)
determining an adjustment value based at least in part upon one or more
picture parameters (claim 1’s elements (b)(iii)(B)) (id. at 6). Addressing the
first noted deficiency of MacInnis, the Examiner finds Ueda’s disclosure of
variable rate video signal encoding using a virtual buffer that determines “a
ratio of an occupied area in a virtual buffer to the total area of the virtual
buffer” teaches or suggests claim 1’s elements (b)(i)(B). Id. at 5 (citing
Ueda ¶ 99). Addressing the second noted deficiency, the Examiner finds
Francois’s disclosure of a quantization parameter QP dependent upon (i) an
input quantization parameter QPCU and (ii) a bit-depth B such that 𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄 =
𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 + 6 ∙ (𝐵𝐵 − 8) teaches or suggests claim element (b)(iii)(B). Id. at 6
(citing Francois ¶ 191).
Appellant contends the Examiner’s rejection is deficient, arguing
“MacInnis does not teach or suggest determining an adjustment value based
at least in part on ‘a compressed bitrate of the video information to be
coded’” as recited by the disputed limitation of claim 1’s element (b)(iii)(C).
Appeal 2020-004975
Application 15/465,328

6
Appeal Br. 10. Appellant argues MacInnis discloses “adjusting a
quantization parameter based on a number of bits used to code an already
coded group, not ‘a compressed bitrate of the video information to be
coded.’” Id. Appellant further argues as follows:
In claim 1, an adjustment value, used to adjust an initial
maximum quantization parameter (QP) value, is determined
based on (1) buffer fullness and (2) one or more picture
parameters comprising a compressed bitrate. The Final Office
Action attempted to justify the rejection of claim 1 based on a
teaching of MacInnis of “the actual number of bits used to code
the most recently coded Group,” which is the definition of
BitsCodedCur in paragraph [0111] of MacInnis. However, one
of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered “the actual
number of bits used to code” as being equivalent to or a teaching
of “a compressed bitrate.” One of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood that number of bits and bitrate are different
measurements and would not have conflated the two as
incorrectly done by the Final Office Action. MacInnis does not
teach or suggest “a compressed bitrate of the video information
to be coded” and neither do Ueda or Francois.
Id. at 11 (square brackets in original).
The Examiner responds, finding MacInnis’s disclosure of
BitsCodedCur which “represents the actual number of bits used to code the
most recently coded Group” (MacInnis ¶ 111) teaches the disputed
limitation of a compressed bitrate of the video information to be coded.
Ans. 13. The Examiner explains, as follows:
Under [the] broadest [reasonable] interpretation, the limitation
“compressed bitrate of the video information to be coded” is
interpreted as bitrate that is “compressed” or reduced. This
reduced bit bitrate is to be used for encoding “the video
information to be coded”. MacInnis teaches “BitsCodedCur,[”]
which the “BitsCoded . . . ” part corresponds to the claimed
Appeal 2020-004975
Application 15/465,328

7
“bitrate”. When the BitsCoded is modified by the term “cur”
(current), it carries the following meaning “bitsrate” of the
current pixel or current group to be coded. Note that [MacInnis’s]
teaching in [paragraph 111 of] “BitsCodedCur [which]
represents the actual number of bits used to code the most
recently coded Group” does not limit the BitsCodedCur as a
“bitrate” only belonging to most recently coded Group [(]or in
applicant’s language “an already coded group”[)], rather it is a
bit rate for [the] most recently coded Group as well as the current
Group. This is due to the fact that both last group and current
group are assigned the same quantization step.
Id. at 13–14 (emphasis omitted) (citing MacInnis ¶ 111).
Appellant replies, arguing the Examiner’s interpretation of
BitsCodedCur is erroneous and is contradicted by MacInnis’s disclosure of
the parameter as the actual number of bits used to code the most recently
coded (past tense) group. Reply Br. 4. Furthermore, according to Appellant,
“[c]laim 1 clearly recites [a] compressed bitrate, and not a number of bits, as
described in MacInnis when MacInnis is properly interpreted.” Id. at 5.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
Appellant’s Specification discloses “a default compressed bitrate may be 6
[bits per pixel (bpp)] (4:1 compression for 8 [bits per component (bpc)]
source content.” Spec. ¶ 141. Therefore, a reasonable interpretation of
compressed bitrate is the number of bits used to represent compressed data
such as the number of bits used to encode each pixel or group of video data.
In view of this interpretation, we disagree with Appellant that a compressed
bitrate is not a number of bits used to code a group. Therefore we agree with
the Examiner in finding MacInnis’s disclosure of BitsCodedCur teaches or
suggests a compressed bitrate of video information.
Appeal 2020-004975
Application 15/465,328

8
Furthermore, Appellant fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s finding that
MacInnis’s BitsCodedCur is not only the bit rate for the most recently coded
group as argued by Appellant, but also the bit rate for the current group (i.e.,
video information to be coded) because “both [the] last group and current
group are assigned the same quantization step.” Ans. 14. Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner in finding MacInnis’s BitsCodedCur teaches or
suggests disputed limitation (b)(iii)(C) requiring the one or more picture
parameters comprise a compressed bitrate of the video information to be
coded.
For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded the Examiner
errs in rejecting independent claim 1 as obvious over the combined teachings
of MacInnis and Ueda; and we sustain that rejection. Further, Appellant
does not challenge the obviousness rejection of independent claims 10 and
19 or of dependent claims 2–7, 9, 11–16, 18, 20–25, and 27 separately.6 See
Appeal Br. 11–12. Thus, we also sustain the rejections of those claims.
DECISION
1. The Examiner does not err in rejecting claims 1–7, 9–16, 18–25, and
27 as obvious over the combined teachings of MacInnis and Ueda.
2. Thus, on this record, claims 1–7, 9–16, 18–25, and 27 are not
patentable.

6 Merely restating with respect to a second claim an argument, previously
presented with respect to a first claim, is not an argument for separate
patentability of the two claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2020-004975
Application 15/465,328

9
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–7, 9–16, 18–25, and
27.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9–16, 18–
25, 27
103 MacInnis, Ueda 1–7, 9–16,
18–25, 27

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