SONY CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2021

2021002424 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 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.
14/778,394 09/18/2015 James Alexander GAMEI 458707US8X PCT 2189
22850 7590 09/02/2021
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
MUNG, ON S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2021 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):
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
iahmadi@oblon.com
patentdocket@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte JAMES ALEXANDER GAMEI and
KARL JAMES SHARMAN
________________

Appeal 2021-002424
Application 14/778,394
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–14, 29, 30, 32–34, 37, and 38.1
Claims 3, 15–28, 31, 35, and 36 are canceled. Appeal Br. 16 and 19–21
(Claims App.). An oral hearing was held July 20, 2021. A transcript of the
hearing is included in the record. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Sony Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-002424
Application 14/778,394

2

SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to a data encoding and
decoding using both a regular path and a bypass pass that does not
necessarily make use of context modeling in the same form as the regular
path. Spec. 1, 12, Fig. 17.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is reproduced below (key limitations emphasized and
bracketing added).
1. A data encoding apparatus for encoding input data values of
an image and/or video data set for encoding, the data encoding
apparatus comprising:
circuitry configured to
select one of a plurality of complementary sub-ranges of
a set of code values according to a value of a current
input data value, the set of code values being defined by
a range variable, proportions of the sub-ranges relative to
the set of code values being defined by a context variable
associated with the input data value;
assign the current input data value to a code value within
the selected sub-range;
modify the set of code values according to the assigned
code value and a size of the selected sub-range;
detect whether the range variable defining the set of code
values is less than a predetermined minimum size and, if
so, successively increase the range variable so as to
increase a size of the set of code values until the range
variable has at least the predetermined minimum size;
encode data bits representing the input data values based
on the increased range variable by outputting an encoded
data bit in response to each size-increasing operation; and
Appeal 2021-002424
Application 14/778,394

3

[1] after encoding a group of the input data values
without encoding equiprobable bypass data
corresponding to the group of the input data values,
perform a bypass data encoding operation including
[2] setting a bypass data range variable to a value
selected from a predetermined subset of available
range variable values, each value in the subset of
available range variable values having at least one
least significant bit equal to zero; and
encoding, using the set bypass data range variable,
the equiprobable bypass data.
Appeal Br. 13–14 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Bossen US 2013/0028334 A1 Jan. 31, 2013
Detlev Marpe et al., Context-based adaptive binary arithmetic coding in
the H.264/AVC video compression standard, IEEE Trans. Circuits Sys.
Video Tech. 13(7), 620–36 (July 2003) (“Marpe”)
K. Sharman, J. Gamei et al., CABAC Stream Termination, JCTVC-G493,
Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG16
WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 (Nov. 2011) (“Gamei”)2
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as
lacking sufficient written description support in the Specification. Final
Act. 3–4.

2 Although K. Sharman is the first-listed author of this reference, we refer to
the second-listed author for consistency with the record.
Appeal 2021-002424
Application 14/778,394

4

The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4–14, 29, 30, 32–34, 37, and 38
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Marpe, Gamei, and Bossen. Final
Act. 4–15.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 13—35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply
with the written description requirement, the Examiner finds that the
limitation in recitation [1] of encoding a group of input data values without
encoding equiprobable bypass data corresponding to the group of input data
values until after the group of input data values has been encoded does not
have sufficient support in the Specification. Final Act. 4. In particular, the
Examiner finds that although the Specification teaches both a regular and a
bypass coding path, the “original specification merely teaches that the
bypass path employs a so-called bypass coder 920[,] which does not
necessarily make use of context modeling in the same form as the regular
path.” Ans. 14 (citing Spec. 12–13, Fig. 17).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the Specification
teaches that “all the bypass data for a [transform unit (TU)] can be coded
together after the [context adaptive binary arithmetic coding (CABAC)] bin
data for the TU.” Appeal Br. 8 (quoting Spec. 38) (emphasis omitted).
Appellant argues that this “disclosure describes that the bypass data for the
transform unit (TU) is coded after the input data of the TU is encoded using
the ‘regular’ path.” Id. (emphasis added). Appellant notes that the Examiner
does not address this disclosure. Reply Br. 4–5.
Appeal 2021-002424
Application 14/778,394

5

We agree with Appellant the Examiner erred. The disclosure of the
bypass data for a transform unit being encoded after CABAC bin data for
the transform unit teaches that the CABAC bin data for the transform unit is
encoded without encoding the bypass data that is to be encoded. Thus, the
cited disclosure in the Specification reasonably conveys to artisans of
ordinary skill that the inventors had possession of recitation [1]. Ariad
Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
rejection of claim 1, and claim 13, which was similarly rejected. Final
Act. 3–4.
Claims 1, 2, 4–14, 37, and 38—35 U.S.C. § 103
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Marpe’s
disclosure of a CABAC coding engine that consists of a subengine that uses
adaptive probability models and a bypass coding subengine for fast encoding
of symbols teaches or suggests recitation [1], “after encoding a group of the
input data values without encoding equiprobable bypass data corresponding
to the group of the input data values, perform a bypass data encoding
operation.” Final Act. 7 (citing Marpe §§ II.C, II.D, Fig. 8); Ans. 15.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “nothing in Marpe
describes when the bypass coding occurs, with respect to the regular
coding.” Appeal Br. 10. Rather, Appellant argues, “Marpe describes that
symbols for regular coding and bypass coding are intermixed and that the
bypass coding mode is used on an ad-hoc basis, without grouping the
symbols for bypass coding together.” Id.; Reply Br. 5.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because, as Appellant
acknowledges, Marpe applies “the bypass coding mode to whichever data is
Appeal 2021-002424
Application 14/778,394

6

appropriate and then the regular coding modes to other data.” Transcript 8
(Aug. 17, 2021). Recitation [1], even in light of the Specification, fails to
limit the claimed “group of the input data values” and “equiprobable bypass
data corresponding to the group of the input data values” so as to exclude
switching between bypass coding and regular coding for data as appropriate
given the nature of the data. The Specification discloses coding bypass data
for a transform unit after the CABAC bin data for the transform unit, but
claim 1 does not limit the claimed group to a transform unit. Spec. 38,
Fig. 34 (cited in Appeal Br. 3). Therefore, Marpe’s regular coding of a group
of data followed by bypass coding for additional data that, by proximity,
corresponds to the group of data, falls within a reasonably broad
interpretation of the recitation [1].
The Examiner, noting that Marpe does not explicitly disclose “each
value in the subset of available values having at least one least significant bit
equal to zero,” relies on Gamei’s teaching of setting n least significant bits to
zero to teach or suggest recitation [2], “setting a bypass data range variable
to a value selected from a predetermined subset of available range variable
values, each value in the subset of available range variable values having at
least one least significant bit equal to zero.” Final Act. 7 (citing Gamei 2–3);
Ans. 16.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because in Gamei “bypass
data is placed in the bit-stream in a raw format” and, thus, “a bypass data
range variable is unnecessary in Gamei, as the bypass data is not coded at
all.” Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 6–7 (“Nothing in Gamei or the Office Action
explains how the output value of the CABAC encoder of Gamei is related to
or would suggest modification of the bypass coding process of Marpe”).
Appeal 2021-002424
Application 14/778,394

7

Appellant further argues, “no selection among available range variable
values is described in Gamei.” Appeal Br. 12.
We agree with Appellant the Examiner erred in finding Gamei teaches
or suggests recitation [2]. With respect to recitation [2], the Specification
discloses that the setting of a bypass data range variable represents
a further refinement to this alternative alignment method, the
bin (or bins) immediately following the alignment can be coded
using (unequal) symbol ranges that are powers of two. In this
way, all requirements for division for subsequent bins can be
removed without any further loss over (0.5 / N) in bit
efficiency.
Spec. 38:27–30 (cited in Appeal Br. 3); see also Spec. Fig. 35 (cited in
Appeal Br. 3).
The Specification further illustrates an example in which,
when aligning to 384, the symbol ranges for [0, 1] for the
subsequent bin can be [256,128]:
If a 0 is coded, m_Range is set to 256, making the cost to
encode the bin 0.5 bits.
If a 1 is coded, m_Range is set to 128 (and 256 is added to
m_Value) and the system is renormalised (again, m_Range
becomes 256), making the cost to encode the bin 1.5 bits.
Spec. 38:31–35.
Thus, the Specification illustrates setting the bypass data range
variable (m_Range) to a value selected from a predetermined subset of
available range variables values (256 and 128), wherein each value in the
subset of available range variable values has at least one least significant bit
equal to zero (256 has eight and 128 has seven least significant bits equal to
zero).
Appeal 2021-002424
Application 14/778,394

8

Gamei, in contrast, discloses at
the end of the [CABAC] stream, any value between low
(inclusive) and high (exclusive) can be selected as the final
output value, without affecting the decode. If the decode could
occur without being dependent on the n LSBs of the value, then
the n LSBs could be replaced with data from the next section of
the bit-stream.
Let v be a value between low and high where n LSBs are 0, and
where if the last n LSBs were 1, the resulting value V would
still be less than high. Since “high – low” is at least 256, then
there will always be a value v between low and high that has at
least 7 LSBs that are 0. [I.e.,] the value v is the first value
between low and high that is divisible by 128 without a
remainder.
. . .
For the current part of the bit-stream, the encoder would output
the value ‘v’, except for the bottom 7 bits, this is achieved by
renormalizing m_uiLow by 2 places. At the end of the bit-
stream, the decoder would have read 7 bits from the next
section of the bit stream, and therefore would have to ‘rewind’
the bit-stream by 7 bits.
Gamei 2–3.
In other words, Gamei replaces the last several bits of a CABAC
(regular coded) bitstream with values from the next bit-stream when doing
so would not affect the decoding. The next bit-stream is not even bypass
data, but rather another CABAC (regular coded) bitstream. Gamei 1 (“Prior
to encoding [the] next CABAC stream, set m_uiRange=510, m_uiLow=0”
(emphasis added)).
Moreover, Gamei places bypass data as raw binary data after each
LCU. Gamei 3 (cited in Appeal Br. 12). Because the Examiner does not
provide sufficient explanation or evidence showing how Gamei’s cited
disclosures—which relate to overlapping regular coded streams—teach or
Appeal 2021-002424
Application 14/778,394

9

suggest setting a bypass data range variable to one of a predetermined subset
of input data values, each value in the subset of available range variable
values having at least one least significant bit equal to zero, we agree with
Appellant that the Examiner’s findings do not show that Gamei teaches or
suggests recitation [2]. Moreover, the Examiner does not show that Marpe or
Bossen cures this deficiency.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 4–14, 29, 30, 32–34, 37, and 38, which
have similar recitations.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4–14, 29, 30, 32–34, 37, 38 is
reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 13 112(a) Written
Description
1, 13
1, 2, 4–14,
29, 30, 32–
34, 37, 38
103 Marpe, Gamei,
Bossen
1, 2, 4–14, 29, 30,
32–34, 37, 38
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–14, 29, 30,
32–34, 37, 38
REVERSED