Zhou, Wei et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 4, 2020

14962814 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 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.
14/962,814 12/08/2015 Wei Zhou ARR00493 1015
21924 7590 02/04/2020
ARRIS Enterprises LLC
Legal Dept - Docketing
101 Tournament Drive
HORSHAM, PA 19044
EXAMINER
NIRJHAR, NASIM NAZRUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/04/2020 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):
ARRIS.docketing@commscope.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WEI ZHOU, JANE PERERA, WAYNE D. MICHELSEN,
and SWAROOP CHANDRA
____________

Appeal 2019-001763
Application 14/962,814
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER,
and GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 7, and 8. We have jurisdiction over the
pending rejected claims 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 ARRIS
Technology, Inc. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2019-001763
Application 14/962,814

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to providing
improved video quality and compression efficiency during encoding by
detecting video segments having film grain approaching the “Red Lady”
problem, in which the video frames have a high random noise level due to
film grain. (Abstract; Spec. ¶ 8.)
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. A method for encoding video comprising:
obtaining video frames provided to an encoder;
obtaining motion estimation (ME) data for the video
frames;
calculating a ME score for the video frames, wherein the
ME score provides a measurement of plotted frame-by-frame
temporal differences;
comparing the ME score with a threshold;
calculating the value of a metric from a temporal
variability of the ME score;
comparing the temporal variability metric with a
predetermined value; and
providing a high film grain indication signal to the
encoder indicating a particular segment of the video frames
contains high film grain when the ME score exceeds a threshold
and the ME score temporal variability metric is below a
predetermined level,
wherein when the high film grain indication signal is
provided, the encoder allocates less bits to I frames and more
bits to P and B type frames than to other frames of the video.

REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3–5, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 2004/0130680 A1, pub. July 8,
Appeal 2019-001763
Application 14/962,814

3
2004) (hereinafter “Zhou”) and He et al. (US 2006/0140267 A1, pub. June
29, 2006) (hereinafter “He”). (Final Act. 4.)

ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issue:2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Zhou and
He teaches or suggests
calculating a ME score for the video frames, wherein the
ME score provides a measurement of plotted frame-by-
frame temporal differences,

as recited in independent claim 1, and the commensurate limitation recited in
independent claim 5. (Appeal Br. 6–8.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner errs. We disagree with Appellant’s arguments,
and we adopt as our own: (1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2–
14); and (2) the corresponding reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. (Ans. 3–14.)

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Aug. 28, 2018, hereinafter
“Appeal Br.”); the Final Office Action (mailed Dec. 22, 2017, hereinafter
“Final Act.”); the Advisory Action (mailed Apr. 18, 2018, hereinafter “Adv.
Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Oct. 18, 2018, hereinafter
“Ans.”) for the respective details.
Appeal 2019-001763
Application 14/962,814

4
We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the Examiner and
emphasize the following.
In finding that the combination of Zhou and He teaches or suggests
the independent claim 1 limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on Zhou’s
disclosure of (1) a temporal signal-to-noise ratio (“TSNR”) that measures
the level of temporally uncorrelated noise between key frames, (2)
measuring motion as the average absolute magnitude of motion vectors that
can be reliably tracked between key frames, (3) a fast matching distribution
(“FMD”) that is a distribution of direct pixel between two key frames versus
matching threshold values, (4) a pixel matching ratio (“PMR”), in which
both high and low PMR distributions can suggest incorrect parameter
settings, and (5) an absolute still ratio (“ASR”), in which a high ASR for
images with reasonable amount of motion may indicate improper setting of
render parameters. (Ans. 11–13; Zhou ¶¶ 59 67, 88–89.)
The Examiner further relies on He’s disclosure of calculating a bit
budget for each I, P, and B frame depending on the estimated I, P, and B
complexity, in which an I frame in a GOP [group of pictures] will be
allocated more bits if the average quantization level for inter coding frames
is greater than a predefined level. (Ans. 7–8, 14; He ¶¶ 29–31, 34–40, Figs.
1–3.)
Appellant argues that claim 1 recites
“calculating a ME score for the video frames, wherein the ME
score provides a measurement of plotted frame-by-frame
temporal differences” to indicate what a ME score is and how it
is different from ME data

Appeal 2019-001763
Application 14/962,814

5
(Appeal Br. 7, emphasis added)3, and that “the ASR in [Zhou ¶ 89] measures
the distribution of pixels that can be tracked over a range of frames. Nothing
in [the description of] ASR [Zhou ¶ 89] indicates a frame-by-frame temporal
difference as claimed in claim 1.”
(Appeal Br. 7.)
Appellant further contends that Zhou does not disclose “a frame-by-
frame temporal difference plot measurement, and definitely does not provide
such a measurement in addition to general ME data for allocating bits to I or
P and B frames.” (Appeal Br. 7.)
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that in Zhou,
1. motion data “is measured by the average absolute magnitude of
motion vectors of all pixels that can be reliably tracked between key
frames” and is “ME data.” (Ans. 11, citing Zhou ¶ 67.);
2. PMR is a “measurement of ME score” that “measures the percentage
of pixels that were reliably estimated over a range of frames within
the temporal window.” (Ans. 13, citing Zhou ¶ 88.); and
3. ASR (absolute matching ratio) is a “measurement of ME score” that
“measures the distribution of pixels that can easily be tracked over a

3 In the Amendment filed Nov. 6, 2017 adding this limitation, Appellant
states that “Applicant has amended claim 1 to indicate that ‘calculating a
ME score for the video frames, wherein the ME score provides a
measurement of plotted frame-by-frame temporal differences’ to better
indicate what a ME score is and how it is different from ME data.”
Amendment at 6. No further explanation regarding what “plotted frame-by-
frame temporal differences” appears in either the Amendment or Appeal.

Appeal 2019-001763
Application 14/962,814

6
range of frames without significant searching effort.” (Ans. 13, citing
Zhou ¶ 89.)
We see no error in the Examiner’s detailed findings, and Appellant
supplied no Reply to address the Examiner’s findings.
Appellant’s argument regarding use of “general ME data for
allocating bits to I or P and B frames” (Appeal Br. 7) is directed to the
disclosures of Zhou alone. This argument is unpersuasive given the reliance
of the Examiner on the combination of Zhou and He. In re Keller, 642 F. 2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Zhou
teaches that
a full-search motion estimation is performed on a pair of frames
selected from key frames using a set of relatively large
thresholds which shows temporal difference at frame level

(Ans. 7, citing Zhou ¶ 92, Fig. 7), and He teaches
allocation of bits for I, P and B based on complexity. So more
or less bits for I frames can be allocated (which is taught by
He). Clearly the equations in paragraphs 34–40 vary bits per
frame so that one of ordinary skill will understand that
complexity of picture can include temporal variability and
[m]otion estimation because the inclusion of that will benefit
compression efficiency. Also the combined teaching will
accommodate predictable results.

(Ans. 14, citing He ¶¶ 34–40, Fig. 2.)
Again we see no error in the Examiner’s detailed findings, and
Appellant supplied no Reply to address the Examiner’s findings.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
1, and independent claim 5 commensurate in scope, as well as dependent
claims 3, 4, 7, and 8 not argued separately. (See Appeal Br. 6–8.)
Appeal 2019-001763
Application 14/962,814

7
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the obviousness rejections of
claims 1, 3–5, 7, and 8.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 7, 8 103 Zhou, He 1, 3–5, 7, 8

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)(iv).

AFFIRMED