Zhou, Bo et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 8, 2020

2019000961 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 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.
13/354,364 01/20/2012 Bo Zhou QC111523 9575
12371 7590 09/08/2020
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C./QUALCOMM
4000 Legato Road, Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22033
EXAMINER
HALLENBECK-HUBER, JEREMIAH CHARLES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2423
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/08/2020 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):
meo.docket@mg-ip.com
meo@mg-ip.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte BO ZHOU, SHU XIAO, JUNCHEN DU, and
SUHAIL JALIL
________________

Appeal 2019-000961
Application 13/354,364
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
RUSSELL E. CASS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–21, which constitute all of the pending claims.1
Appeal Br. 4–13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Board conducts a limited de novo review of 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). We AFFIRM.

1 Appellant identifies QUALCOMM Incorporated as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief filed August 22, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”) 3.
Appeal 2019-000961
Application 13/354,364

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant describes the present invention as follows:
A method for performing texture decoding in a multi-
threaded processor includes substantially simultaneously
decoding, in multiple hardware threads, at least two macro-
blocks of a VP8 frame. Each hardware thread decodes one
macro-block at a time. The method may also include assigning
a macro-block from the at least two macro-blocks of the VP8
frame to a hardware thread of the multi-threaded processor.
Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the subject matter
of the appealed claims:
1. A method for texture decoding in a multi-threaded
processor, comprising:
assigning a first macro-block in a first row of a
compressed video data format frame encoded in accordance with
Internet Engineering Task Force Request For Comment 6386 to
a first hardware thread and a second macro-block in a second row
of the compressed video data format frame to a second hardware
thread, the first row adjacent to the second row; and
simultaneously decoding the first macro-block by the first
hardware thread and the second macro-block by the second
hardware thread by:
reconstructing the first macro-block and the second
macro-block; and
performing loop filtering of the first macro-block
and the second macro-block immediately following
reconstruction of the first macro-block and the second
macro-block before the first hardware thread or the second
hardware thread reconstructs additional macro-blocks.

Appeal 2019-000961
Application 13/354,364

3
STATEMENT OF THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, as failing to
comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 4–5.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7–11, 13–15, 17, 20, and 21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2012/0014451 Al;
published Jan. 19, 2012) and Xu (US 2010/0061455 Al; published Mar. 11,
2010). Final Act. 5–9.2
Claims 3, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lee, Xu, and Smith (US 8,036,517 B2; published Oct. 11,
2011). Final Act. 9–11.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lee, Xu, and Shin (US 2012/0087414 Al; published Apr.
12, 2012). Final Act. 11.
Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lee, Xu, and Molloy (US 2006/0050976 Al; published
Mar. 9, 2006). Final Act. 12–13.
Claims 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lee, Xu, Smith, and Shin. Final Act. 11–12.

2 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellant’s arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as the
following documents for their respective details: the Final Action mailed
May 1, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer mailed
November 2, 2018 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed November 15, 2018
(“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-000961
Application 13/354,364

4
THE SECTION 112(a) REJECTION
Determinations and Contentions
The Examiner rejects claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement because the
claims contain subject matter that was not described in the Specification in
such a way as to reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the
claimed subject matter at the time of the invention. Final Act. 4. More
specifically, the Examiner finds, “[t]he claims require a video data format
frame encoded in accordance with ‘Internet Engineering Task Force Request
for Comment 6386’. However, the applicant’s specification makes no
mention of incorporating Comment 6386 by reference nor [contains] any
description of what encoding according to the Comment entails.” Final Act.
4. The Examiner also addresses an assertion presented by Appellant: “The
applicant asserts on pg. 8 of the remarks [filed Dec. 14, 2017] that Comment
6386 is also known as the VP8 encoding format, which is mentioned in the
specification, however the applicant has not presented any evidence to
support this assertion.” Final Act. 4–5.
Appellant asserts,
The Instant Applicant cites VP8 a video compression
format (See Instant Application, paragraph 2). One of ordinary
skill relevant to VP8 video compression would necessarily
understand that this video compression format is defined by
RFC 6386 as indicated by the title as well as a review of
RFC 6386 wherein VP8 is cited and defined. Further, the
Examiner cites to Xu wherein Xu states “VPx (promulgated by
On2 Technologies, Inc. of Clifton Park, N.Y.)” (See Xu,
paragraph 4). As indicated in the RFC 6386, On2’s VP8 is the
precursor to RFC 6386. Xu was filed in 2008, and, as detailed
in the Wikipedia reference provided to the Examiner RFC 6386
was not published until 2011 after sale of the rights to VP8 by
Appeal 2019-000961
Application 13/354,364

5
On2. The Appellant submits that VP8 is synonymous with RFC
6386 and citing to one or the other is adequate support for use of
both terms especially considering that RFC 6386 is the very
standard that defines the VP8 video compression format and only
the VP8 video compression format.
Appeal Br. 6.
Analysis
To summarize, Appellant acknowledges that its Specification only
discloses the VP8 video compression format—not the RFC 6386 industry
standard. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant further states that VP8 is a precursor to
RFC 6386. Appeal Br. 6. Restated, Appellant acknowledges that the VP8
compression format and the RFC 6386 are not synonymous.
Accordingly, Appellant effectively acknowledges that its
Specification only discloses a protocol that is a precursor to the standard
now being claimed—the Specification does not disclose the subsequent
standard, itself. Furthermore, Appellant does not explain why, if the terms
are synonymous, Appellant chose to recite the undisclosed term in the
claims instead of the disclosed term.
We, therefore, affirm the written-description rejection of claims 1–21
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).

THE SECTION 103 REJECTIONS
Determinations and Contentions
The Examiner finds that Lee discloses all of the limitations of claim 1
except for the requirement that the macro-block in a first row of a
compressed video data format frame is encoded specifically in accordance
with Internet Engineering Task Force Request For Comment 6386. Final
Act. 5–6. In relation to the claim language not taught by Lee, the Examiner
Appeal 2019-000961
Application 13/354,364

6
finds, “Xu discloses decoding frames according to a VP8 encoding
format. . . , which the applicant identifies as the format described by IETF
Request for Comment 6386.” Final Act. 6 (citing Xu. ¶¶ 16, 17). The
Examiner further finds that “Xu particularly discloses decoding a VP8
format frame using multi-threaded processors where each processor is
assigned a set of macroblock rows for parallel processing.” Id. at 6–7 (citing
Xu ¶¶ 24–27; FIG. 4). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to apply the multi-threaded wavefront parallel processing of Lee so
as to comply with the VP8 standard in order to gain the expected advantage
of greater standards compliance. Id. at 7.
As part of the findings regarding Lee, the Examiner explains how Lee
discloses the final limitation of claim 1, which requires “performing loop
filtering of the first macro-block and the second macro-block immediately
following reconstruction of the first macro-block and the second macro-
block before the first hardware thread or the second hardware thread
reconstructs additional macro-blocks”:
Lee discloses that processing of a current macroblock depends
on previously processed neighboring blocks [that] have been
decoded/reconstructed (Lee par. 124). Lee further discloses that
the decoding/reconstruction includes deblock filtering (Lee
Fig. 7 and par. 116 indicating decoding steps including inverse
quantization, inverse discrete cosine transform and adding
(reconstruction), culminating in deblocking 716). Thus
processing of the current macroblock block cannot be performed
until the completion of deblock filtering for the previous
macroblock i.e. the left adjacent block as indicated by par. 123
of Lee (Lee macroblocks processed from left to right). Lee
further discloses processing blocks in adjacent rows
simultaneously, in a ‘wavefront’ order (Lee Fig. 9 pars 126–127
note simultaneous processing of macroblocks 920, 926[,] and
932). [Because] the next macroblocks to be processed, 928 and
Appeal 2019-000961
Application 13/354,364

7
934, will depend from blocks, 926 and 932[,] respectively[,]
deblock filtering for the next macroblocks cannot begin until the
blocks from which the[y] depend have been decoded/
reconstructed[,] which includes deblock filtering. Therefore,
contrary to the appellant’s assertion, Lee does disclose
performing loop filtering on first and second macroblocks
immediately following reconstruction and before reconstruction
of additional macroblocks.
Ans. 12–13.
Appellant contend that the obviousness rejection is improper for
various reasons. Appeal Br. 7–10. For example, in relation to the last
limitation, Appellant argues,
the Examiner alleges that Lee teaches “performing loop filtering
of the first macroblock and the second macro-block immediately
following reconstruction of the first macro-block and the second-
macro block before the first or second hardware thread
reconstructs additional macroblocks. . . . The Appellant
disagrees. Nothing in Lee specifies that loop filtering is done on
each parallel processed macro-block before processing other
macro-blocks. The cited paragraphs in Lee merely mention loop
processing without specifying when the loop filtering takes
place.
Appeal Br. 10.
Appellant further argues,
nothing in paragraphs 116, 123, 124, 126–127 or Figures 7–9 of
Lee discloses which macro-blocks are assigned to which threads.
In paragraph 123, Lee merely states that “[e]ach macroblock may
use information from the previously encoded macroblock for
motion vector prediction, intra prediction, and deblocking.” This
does not mention when the information is used (before the
previous macro-block is loop filtered, for example). Note that
Lee also does not mention previously decoded macroblocks[—]
only encoded macroblocks[,] nor does Lee mention if the current
macroblock is assigned to one of the thread[s] of a loop filtered
macroblock. In paragraph 124, Lee only mentions the loop
Appeal 2019-000961
Application 13/354,364

8
filtering related to block 804 and block 808 for the current
macroblock 810 dependency and block 808 is not in a row
adjacent to macroblock 810 (same row).
Lee does not mention if macroblock 810 is assigned to the
same thread as macroblock 804 (or even 802 and 808[,] although
loop filtering is not mention[ed] in relation to these particular
adjacent row blocks)[,] nor does Lee mention when the threads
of the two loop filtered blocks are assigned to additional blocks
(i.e. before or after assigning macroblock 810 to one of these
threads). As also can be seen in Figure 9 of Lee, the cited
macroblocks 920, 926, and 932 are indicated as thread 7 (T7)
while the reconstructed blocks are indicates as other than T7.
Lee fails to describe when the threads T1–6 are reassigned[,] nor
does Figure 9 show a current macroblock using a thread used by
a reconstructed macroblock.
Reply Br. 4–5 (formatting modified).3
Analysis
Appellant’s arguments persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 1. The cited passages of Lee show, to some
degree, the order in which Lee reconstructs the macroblocks. But the
Examiner does not sufficiently establish that Lee discloses that two
macroblocks of adjacent rows are decoded simultaneously.
We, therefore, reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and of
claims 2, 5, 7–11, 13–15, 17, 20, and 21, which either depend from or
otherwise include the language of the disputed limitation.4

3 Appellant only numbers page one of the Reply Brief. We interpret the
“REMARKS/ARGUMENTS” section as starting on page two.
4 We also question whether the Examiner established a sufficient factual
basis for why one of ordinary skill in the art, having read Lee, reasonably
would have expected Lee’s teachings to be capable of being carried out
when alternatively using a VP8 protocol, or whether the Examiner’s
proposed modification was a result of impermissibly using Appellant’s
Appeal 2019-000961
Application 13/354,364

9
With respect to the remaining rejection of claims 3, 4, 12, 18, and 19,
the Examiner does not rely on the additional teachings of Smith, Shin, or
Molloy to cure the noted deficiency of the obviousness rejection of claim 1.
Final Act. 9–13. We, therefore, reverse the obviousness rejections of these
claims for the reasons set forth in relation to independent claim 1.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

claims as a roadmap. But because we reverse the obviousness rejections
based on the noted missing claim element, we need not address the
sufficiency of the proposed motivation to combine.
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–21  112, 1st
paragraph 
Written
Description 
1–21   
1, 2, 5, 7–11, 13–
15, 17, 20, 21
103(a) Lee, Xu 1, 2, 5, 7–
11, 13–15,
17, 20, 21
3, 18, 19 103(a) Lee, Xu,
Smith
3, 18, 19
4 103(a) Lee, Xu,
Shin
4
6, 16 103(a) Lee, Xu,
and Molloy
6, 16
12 103(a) Lee, Xu,
Smith, Shin
12
Overall Outcome 1–21
Appeal 2019-000961
Application 13/354,364

10
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)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED