Xu, Lidong et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 23, 2020

2019003994 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 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.
13/991,606 06/04/2013 Lidong Xu ITL.2801US (P44521US) 1083
47795 7590 09/23/2020
TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
PO Box 41790
HOUSTON, TX 77241
EXAMINER
AN, SHAWN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2020 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):
Inteldocs_docketing@cpaglobal.com
tphpto@tphm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte LIDONG XU, WENHAO ZHANG, YI-JEN CHIU, HONG
JIANG, and YU HAN
____________________

Appeal 2019-003994
Application 13/991,6061
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s invention is Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
using an adaptive Wiener filter with offset for video decoding;
applying the adaptive Wiener filter on processed lower layer
reconstructed pictures and input enhancement layer pictures to
produce a filter output;

1 Appellant states that the real party in interest is Intel Corporation. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003994
Application 13/991,606

2
using the filter output for interlayer prediction;
determining whether to send Wiener filter coefficients and
offsets from an encoder to a decoder, to send only Wiener filter
coefficients from the encoder to the decoder or to send only
offsets from the encoder to the decoder.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
May US 5,844,627 Dec. 1, 1998
Bao US 2007/0014349 A1 Jan. 18, 2007
Wu US 2008/0095238 A1 Apr. 24, 2008
Pereira 2010/0142844 A1 June 10, 2010
Narroschke US 2010/0254463 A1 Oct. 7, 2010
Polyudov US 7,962,736 B1 June 14, 2011
Fu US 2012/0177107 A1 July 12, 2012
Choi US 2012/0269261 A1 Oct. 25, 2012
Chono US 2012/0307898 A1 Dec. 6, 2012
Ikai US 2013/0136371 A1 May 30, 2013
Liu US 2015/0103900 A1 Apr. 16, 2015

Claims 1–6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18–25, 28, and 29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chono, Narroschke, Choi, Liu,
May, and Fu. Final Act. 4.
Claims 7 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chono, Narroschke, Choi, Liu, May, Fu, and Wu. Final
Act. 4.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Chono, Narroschke, Choi, Liu, Wu, May, Fu, and Pereira. Final Act. 5.
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chono, Narroschke, Choi, Liu, Wu, May, Fu, and Ikai.
Final Act. 4.
Appeal 2019-003994
Application 13/991,606

3
Claims 15 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chono, Narroschke, Choi, Liu, May, Fu, and Polyudov.
Final Act. 4.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Chono, Narroschke, Choi, Liu, May, Fu, and Bao. Final Act. 4.
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Chono, Narroschke, Choi, Liu, May, Fu, and Pereira. Final Act. 4.
Claims 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chono, Narroschke, Choi, Liu, May, Fu, and Ikai. Final
Act. 4.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed Jan. 23, 2019) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,”
mailed Mar. 21, 2019) for their respective details.
ISSUE
Does May teach determining whether to send Wiener filter
coefficients from an encoder to a decoder?
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections
Independent claims 1 and 13 recite, inter alia, “determining whether to
send Wiener filter coefficients and offsets from an encoder to a decoder, to
send only Wiener filter coefficients from the encoder to the decoder or to
send only offsets from the encoder to the decoder.”
The Examiner finds that Chono does not teach, inter alia, determining
whether to send Wiener filter coefficients from an encoder to a decoder, and
relies on May for a teaching of such a determination. Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2019-003994
Application 13/991,606

4
Appellant contends that May does not teach determining whether to
send coefficients from an encoder to a decoder. Specifically, Appellant
argues that May teaches only determining whether to send Wiener filter
(101) coefficients to encoder 104. Wiener teaches such a digital filter 101 for
noise removal; the filtered data stream is then provided to a video
compression system 104, and compressed data is then stored in a mass
storage system. May col. 2:53–62.
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner correctly characterized
May’s compression system as an “encoder.” May teaches no decoder, and
thus does not teach any determination whether to send Wiener filter
coefficients from an encoder to a decoder.
The Examiner thus erred in finding that the combination of Chono,
Narroschke, Choi, Liu, May, and Fu teaches or suggests all the limitations of
claims 1–6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18–25, 28, and 29. We do not sustain the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection.
Similarly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 26 over
Chono, Narroschke, Choi, Liu, May, Fu, and Wu. We do not sustain the
rejection of claim 8 over Chono, Narroschke, Choi, Liu, Wu, May, and Fu.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 12 over Chono, Narroschke,
Choi, Liu, Wu, May, Fu, and Ikai. We do not sustain the rejection of claims
15 and 17 over Chono, Narroschke, Choi, Liu, May, Fu, and Polyudov. We
do not sustain the rejection of claim 16 over Chono, Narroschke, Choi, Liu,
May, Fu, and Bao. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 27 over Chono,
Narroschke, Choi, Liu, May, Fu, and Pereira. Last, we do not sustain the
Appeal 2019-003994
Application 13/991,606

5
rejection of claims 30 and 31 over Chono, Narroschke, Choi, Liu, May, Fu,
and Ikai.

CONCLUSION
May does not teach determining whether to send Wiener filter
coefficients from an encoder to a decoder.
Appeal 2019-003994
Application 13/991,606

6
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 9, 10,
13, 14, 18–
25, 28, 29
103 Chono,
Narroschke, Choi,
Liu, May, Fu, Wu
1–6, 9, 10,
13, 14, 18–
25, 28, 29
7, 26 103 Chono,
Narroschke, Choi,
Liu, Wu, May, Fu
7, 26
8 103 Chono,
Narroschke, Choi,
Liu, Wu, May,
Pereira, Fu
8
11, 12 103 Chono,
Narroschke, Choi,
Liu, Wu, May, Fu,
Ikai
11, 12
15, 17 103 Chono,
Narroschke, Choi,
Liu, May, Fu,
Polyudov
15, 17
16 103 Chono,
Narroschke, Choi,
Liu, May, Fu, Bao
16
27 103 Chono,
Narroschke, Choi,
Liu, May, Fu,
Pereira
27
30, 31 103 Chono,
Narroschke, Choi,
Liu, May, Fu, Ikai
30, 31
Overall
Outcome

1–31

Appeal 2019-003994
Application 13/991,606

7
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–31 is reversed.

REVERSED