DOLBY LABORATORIES LICENSING CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 28, 2021

2020003640 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 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.
15/718,813 09/28/2017 Athanasios Leontaris 23156-0002003 7127
143308 7590 04/28/2021
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (Dolby)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
MUNG, ON S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2021 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):
PATDOCTC@fr.com
mguo@dolby.com
patents@dolby.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte ATHANASIOS LEONTARIS and
ALEXANDROS TOURAPIS1
________________

Appeal 2020-003640
Application 15/718,813
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, 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 2–4, which constitute all claims pending in this
application. Appeal Br. 1–8.2 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 Dolby Laboratories Licensing
Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief, filed February 6,
2019 (“Appeal Br.”), at 1.
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
October 18, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 27,
2019 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed August 9, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-003640
Application 15/718,813

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant describes the claimed subject matter as follows:
Embodiments feature families of rate allocation and rate
control methods that utilize advanced processing of past and
future frame/field picture statistics and are designed to operate
with one or more coding passes. At least two method families
include: a family of methods for a rate allocation with picture
look-ahead; and a family of methods for average bit rate (ABR)
control methods. At least two other methods for each method
family are described. For the first family of methods, some
methods may involve intra rate control. For the second family
of methods, some methods may involve high complexity ABR
control and/or low complexity ABR control. These and other
embodiments can involve any of the following: spatial coding
parameter adaptation, coding prediction, complexity processing,
complexity estimation, complexity filtering, bit rate
considerations, quality considerations, coding parameter
allocation, and/or hierarchical prediction structures, among
others.
Abstract.
Independent claim 2, reproduced below with the disputed language
emphasized, represents the appealed claims:3
2. A method for decoding a bitstream, the method
comprising:
receiving, at a decoder comprising one or more processing
devices, the bitstream, wherein the bitstream includes image

3 Appellant argues claims 2–4 together as a group. Appeal Br. 2–8.
Accordingly, we select independent claim 2 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018) (“When multiple claims subject to the same ground
of rejection are argued as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may
select a single claim from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal
as to the ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the
basis of the selected claim alone.”).

Appeal 2020-003640
Application 15/718,813

3
frames associated with at least a first temporal scalability level
and a second temporal scalability level,
wherein the image frames of the second temporal
scalability level are not used as a reference for motion-
compensated prediction of the image frames of the first
temporal scalability level,
wherein at least one frame of the second temporal
scalability level is signaled in the bitstream as a
disposable frame, and at least one frame of the second
temporal scalability level is signaled in the bitstream as a
non-disposable frame, and
wherein the second temporal scalability level
comprises at least one frame that is an I-coded picture, and
at least one frame that is not an I-coded picture;
discarding, without decoding, all frames of the second
temporal scalability level, including the at least one frame that is
signaled as a disposable frame, and the at least one frame that is
signaled as a non-disposable frame; and
decoding frames of the first temporal scalability level.

STATEMENT OF THE REJECTION
Claims 2–4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over van Beek (US 2008/0259799 A1; published October 23,
2008) and Shin (US 2005/0169379 A1; published August 4, 2005). Final
Act. 3–6.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
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).
Appeal 2020-003640
Application 15/718,813

4
DETERMINATIONS AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that van Beek discloses a Quality-Aware
Adaptive and Selective Streaming (“QASS”) algorithm that improves the
transmission of bitstreams of encoded image frames that are sent from a
transmitter-side encoder to a receiver-side decoder. Final Act. 3–4.
According to the Examiner, the bitstreams include image frames associated
with at least first and second scalability levels. Id.
The Examiner finds that the QASS algorithm can be performed either
at van Beek’s transmitter, prior to encoding the bitstream, or alternatively at
the receiver, prior to decoding the bitstream. Ans. 6–7 (citing van Beek
¶ 33, Figs. 2, 3). The Examiner further finds that independent claim 2
generally reads on the embodiment of Van Beek wherein the QASS
algorithm is performed at the receiver, prior to decoding. Final Act. 3–5;
Ans. 6–7.
The Examiner further finds that van Beek does not explicitly disclose
that the encoded picture frames that are associated with the second temporal
scalability level specifically include I-coded pictures, but relies on Shin to
cure this deficiency. Final Act. 5. The Examiner determines that motivation
existed to combine the teachings of van Beek and Shin. Id. at 5.
Appellant initially argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting the
claims over van Beek because, according to Appellant, van Beek only
discloses performing the QASS process at the transmitter and that this
process entails discarding frames before transmission. Appeal Br. 5 (citing
van Beek ¶ 24). Appellant further argues that Examiner’s reliance on the
transmitter-side QASS process in van Beek to disclose the penultimate claim
step of “discarding, without decoding, all frames of the second temporal
Appeal 2020-003640
Application 15/718,813

5
scalability level . . .” is self-contradictory, because a frame that is omitted
from transmission “cannot be received by a receiver,” and even further that
“it would be logically impossible for the receiver to discard anything that is
not received.” Id. at 7.
After the Examiner clarifies in the Examiner’s Answer that van Beek
additionally discloses an alternative embodiment wherein the process is
performed at the receiver (Ans. 6–7 (citing van Beek ¶ 33)), Appellant
asserts that it is improper for the Examiner to combine different
embodiments from the reference, i.e., the transmitter-side QASS process
embodiment and the receiver-side QASS process embodiment. Reply Br. 3–
4. According to Appellant, the receiver-side embodiment of the QASS
algorithm discussed in paragraph 33 of van Beek “is an alternative to a
transmitter-side QASS process,” Reply Br. 3, and therefore cannot be used
by the Examiner to reject one part of the disputed language (“wherein . . . at
least one frame of the second temporal scalability level is signaled in the
bitstream as a non-disposable frame”), while continuing to use the
transmitter-side QASS process embodiment to reject another part of the
same limitation (“wherein at least one frame of the second temporal
scalability level is signaled in the bitstream as a disposable frame”). Id. at 4.

ANALYSIS
We understand Appellant’s position to be that the transmitter-side and
receiver-side embodiments of the QASS process taught by van Beek are two
distinct processes—e.g., complementary processes—such that the
embodiments or their respective teachings are neither interchangeable nor
combinable. We disagree.
Appeal 2020-003640
Application 15/718,813

6
We do agree with Appellant that van Beek primarily describes a
transmitter-side embodiment of the QASS process. Compare, e.g., van Beek
Figs. 2–3 (illustrating that the sender 210, and not the receiver 250, includes
the scheduler module 214), ¶¶ 28, 31 (describing the scheduler module 214
located in the sender 210), ¶¶ 35, 36 (detailing measures of video quality
associated with individual frames in the TX buffer), ¶¶ 42–45 (describing
the hierarchical coding of frames in the TX buffer), ¶¶ 47–54 (describing the
selection of a frame transmission pattern by the scheduler in the sender 210),
¶¶ 55–66 (describing measures of picture quality distortion for a particular
pattern if a frame in the TX buffer is not decoded), ¶¶ 67–69 (describing a
video distortion quality model that measures expected distortion or expected
quality that results from transmitting or omitting frames in the TX buffer by
the QASS process), and ¶¶ 118, 119, 129–32 (describing an exemplary
heuristic rule for selecting a frame pattern from the TX buffer by the
scheduler) with ¶ 33 (describing an embodiment, not shown, where the
QASS process is performed at the receiver 250). However, as explained
below, we understand that van Beek goes into greater detail in explaining the
transmitter-side embodiment in order to fully illustrate the details of the
process and not, in contrast to what Appellant suggests, to indicate that the
teachings concerning the transmitter-side embodiment are inapplicable to a
receiver-side embodiment.
Van Beek describes, in the context of the transmitter-side
embodiment, the problem of buffer overflow at the transmitter when the
backlog of content to be transmitted increases beyond the buffering capacity
of the transmitter. van Beek ¶ 24. The transmitter-side QASS process
addresses this problem by deliberately determining to drop certain frames
Appeal 2020-003640
Application 15/718,813

7
from the backlog. Id.; see also id. ¶¶ 52–53 (explaining how, based on a
target frame transmission pattern associated with a minimum calculated
distortion value, the QASS process schedules the frames in the transmitter
buffer). Specifically, van Beek describes a scheduler module that executes
the QASS process to determine which frames to drop given the buffer size,
channel constraints, and characteristics of the frames. Id. at ¶ 24.
Although van Beek illustrates the QASS algorithm in the context of a
video streaming server that is attempting to reliably transmit data to a client
so as to match or adjust to a dynamically changing target bandwidth of a
network communication link (van Beek ¶ 28), van Beek teaches that in some
embodiments, the QASS process alternatively can be applied at the
receiving, client side. Id. ¶ 33. In particular, van Beek teaches that the
scheduler module operates in such embodiments to drop certain frames
stored in a receiver buffer prior to decoding. Id. The frames in the receiver
buffer are not, of course, being prepared to be transmitted over a network.
But van Beek explains that it may nevertheless be necessary to drop certain
frames when, for instance, the computational processing resources of the
receiver are constrained. Id. Van Beek teaches that by dropping certain
frames in the receiver prior to a decoding step, the processing and
presentation of the data may be sped up. Id.
With respect to van Beek’s description of the receiver side
embodiment as an embodiment in which the coded data is transmitted by the
sender without performing the QASS process (van Beek ¶ 33), we do not
recognize this description to mean that the transmitter and receiver side
processes are distinct, complementary sub-processes of a larger overall
algorithm. Instead, we understand van Beek to be disclosing that the QASS
Appeal 2020-003640
Application 15/718,813

8
process can be carried out either at the transmitter or the receiver. Van Beek
¶ 33. Furthermore, Appellant does not present persuasive evidence that van
Beek describes any functional differences between the QASS process, as
performed on the transmitter side, and that process, as performed on the
receiver side, that reasonably would lead us to conclude that the QASS
process operates differently based on where the process is carried out.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative claim 2.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 and of
dependent claims 3 and 4, which Appellant groups with claim 2. Appeal
Br. 2–8.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

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

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
2–4 103 van Beek, Shin 2–4