ARRIS Enterprises, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 2, 2021

2020000311 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 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.
14/662,376 03/19/2015 Koohyar Minoo ARR00218 1334
21924 7590 04/02/2021
ARRIS Enterprises LLC
Legal Dept - Docketing
101 Tournament Drive
HORSHAM, PA 19044
EXAMINER
HODGES, SUSAN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2021 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):
ARRIS.docketing@commscope.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Ex parte KOOHYAR MINOO, AJAY K. LUTHRA, and DAVID M.
BAYLON

Appeal 2020-000311
Application 14/662,376
Technology Center 2400

Before MARC S. HOFF, SCOTT E. BAIN, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 8 and 9. Appeal Br. 4. Claims 1–7 and
10–20 have been cancelled. Id. at 7–8. We have jurisdiction 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 2020-000311
Application 14/662,376

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to a method for scalable video
coding. Appeal Br. 3. In particular, to the “process of using a two layer
Scalable Video Coding (SVC) scheme for encoding and decoding of video
sequences derived from the same source with differences in resolution.”
Spec. ¶ 2. SVC can be, for example, a Moving Picture Experts Group
(“MPEG”) standard for media coding, such as MPEG-4. Abstr. With the
SVC process, “video data expressed in one color gamut space can be used
for prediction in encoding with a possibly different color space.” Abstr.
Independent claim 8 is illustrative, with the limitations at issue
emphasized in italics:
1. A method for scalable video coding comprising:
receiving sampling signals taken from a video of a first coding
layer and providing an output signal to a second coding layer
that codes video with an enhanced resolution;
selecting a picture from the sampling signals of the video in the
first coding layer for coding video with the base resolution;
selecting either a plurality of filters or a mapping formula that
converts a set of primary color values for a pixel in the picture
with a primary color gamut in the first coding layer to a
different set of color values making up a target color gamut that
is suitable for presentation on a display for the second coding
layer that conforms to the target color gamut,
wherein a different mapping would be applied to different
regions of a frame for the picture, and
wherein the different mapping in the different frame regions is
done by signaling linear or non-linear three dimensional look
up table (3DLUT) color mapping parameters with a quad-tree
structure, and by signaling to reuse collocated partitioning and
color mapping parameters from previous frames.
Appeal 2020-000311
Application 14/662,376

3
Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.). Dependent claim 9 incorporates the
limitations of claim 8. Id. at 7.

REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Kerofsky et al.
(“Kerofsky”)
US 2014/0086318 A1 Mar. 27, 2014
Bordes et al.
(“Bordes”)
US 2016/0057454 A1 Feb. 25, 2016

REJECTIONS
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over the combined teachings and suggestions of Kerofsky and Bordes.

OPINION
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s combination of Kerofsky and
Bordes does not teach or suggest applying a different mapping to “different
regions of a frame” as set forth in claim 8. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant argues
that Kerofsky “does not cover mapping of video frames.” Id. Appellant
argues that Bordes “applies to an entire frame and not specific regions.” Id.
The Examiner finds the combination of Kerofsky and Bordes to teach
or suggest applying a different mapping to “different regions of a frame.”
Final Act. 5. Kerofsky addresses prediction in video encoding and decoding
using, for example, an MPEG scheme. Kerofsky ¶¶ 18–19. The Examiner
finds Kerofsky to teach or suggest a video encoder using a scaled color
prediction from an image frame to transmit color prediction parameters to
the video decoder, in which a color space predictor 400 can generate the
Appeal 2020-000311
Application 14/662,376

4
scaled color space predictions for the prediction selection function 350 on a
per slice (intra-frame) basis. Id. (citing Kerofsky ¶ 47). The Examiner
further finds Kerofsky to teach that such generation is performed by
signaling linear or non-linear look up table color mapping parameters with
an adaptive quad-tree structure. Ans. 4 (citing Kerofsky ¶ 76). The
Examiner finds that Kerofsky does not specifically teach the use of a three
dimensional look up table, but that Bordes does teach a three dimensional
look up table having color mapping parameters such as “color_map_-
repetition_period” and “color_map_id.” Ans. 4.
The test for obviousness is “what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, the Examiner relies upon a
combination of the references to teach or suggest applying a different
mapping to different regions of a frame. Appellant argues that that Kerofsky
does not cover mapping of video frames, and that Bordes applies to an entire
frame and not specific regions. However, Appellant does not explain how
the Examiner’s combination of Kerofsky and Bordes fails to teach or suggest
applying a different mapping to different regions of a frame. Because
Appellant has not addressed the combined teachings of the references, we
are not persuaded that the Examiner errs in finding the claimed combination
to teach or suggest applying a different mapping to different regions of a
frame.
Furthermore, Appellant has merely provided a conclusory statement,
without explanation, that Kerofsky “does not cover mapping of video
frames.” Appeal Br. 4 (emphasis omitted). Appellant has not explained
how Kerofsky’s description of “signaling linear or non-linear look up table
Appeal 2020-000311
Application 14/662,376

5
color mapping parameters with an adaptive quad-tree structure” fails to
teach or suggest that limitation. We further note that the Specification
describes “mapping to different frame regions” as being done by “signaling
linear or non-linear 3DLUT color mapping parameters with an adaptive
quad-tree structure.” Spec. ¶ 7. The Examiner has found the combination of
Kerofsky and Bordes to teach or suggest that limitation. Ans. 4. Appellant
has not explained why the Examiner errs in finding the combination of
Kerofsky and Bordes to teach or suggest that limitation. Further, because
the Specification describes such signaling as one procedure to perform such
mapping, Appellant has not explained how performing that procedure would
not perform the claimed mapping.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner’s reliance on Bordes is
misplaced, because Bordes’s quad tree structure is an octree used to encode
a three dimensional look up table, not a tree to specify which three
dimensional look up table to use for different frame regions. Appeal Br. 5.
Appellant argues that claim 8 “is re-using the quad-tree structure already
used in HEVC for spatially partitioning the picture frame regions for
prediction and coding, and neither Bordes or Kerofsky deals with frame
portions as claimed this way in claim 8.” Id.
This argument also is based on an alleged lack of either reference
teaching frame portions, i.e., different frame regions, in the context of the
remaining claim limitations, we are not persuaded, for the reasons detailed
above. Supra at 4–5. Further, Appellant has only argued that each
individual reference does not provide this teaching, without arguing that the
combined teachings and suggestions of the Kerofsky and Bordes fail to teach
or suggest the claimed limitations. Because the Examiner’s rejection is
Appeal 2020-000311
Application 14/662,376

6
based on the combined teachings of Kerofsky and Bordes, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s argument.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 8, and affirm the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 8. Moreover, Appellant does not argue claim 8 separately
from claim 9, and therefore, claim 9 falls with claim 8. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
For the above-described reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of claims 8 and 9 as being obvious over the applied
references under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as detailed below.
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).

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
8, 9 103 Kerofsky, Bordes 8, 9

AFFIRMED