Dong Tian et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 31, 2019

13138459 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2019)

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.
13/138,459 08/19/2011 Dong Tian PU090029 6342
24498 7590 12/31/2019
Vincent E. Duffy
THOMSON Licensing
19868 Collins Road
CANYON COUNTRY, CA 91351
EXAMINER
SECHSER, JILL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2019 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):
Patricia.Verlangieri@InterDigital.com
mike.pugel@eurekovation.com
vincent.duffy@technicolor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DONG TIAN, PO-LIN LAI, and JIANCONG LUO
____________________

Appeal 2018-006948
Application 13/138,459
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JENNIFER S. BISK, LARRY J. HUME, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.

BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5, 7–21, and 28–33. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Specification filed
August 19, 2011 (“Spec.”), the Final Rejection mailed July 19, 2017 (“Final
Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed December 12, 2017 (“Appeal Br.”), and the
Examiner’s Answer mailed April 25, 2018 (“Ans.”). Appellant did not file a
Reply Brief.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
THOMSON LICENSING. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-006948
Application 13/138,459

2
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to a
method and apparatus for encoding and decoding 3d video (“3DV”) content
in a format that includes both two-dimensional (“2D”) video and depth
components. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal (emphasis added to contested prior-art limitations):
1. A method comprising:
- encoding a set of images, including a two-dimensional
(2D) video image and a depth image corresponding to
the 2D video image, that are related according to a
particular 3D video format, the set of images being
encoded by inter-layer prediction in a manner that
exploits redundancy between the 2D video image and
the depth image in the set of images using a multi-
layer video coding extension of a video coding
standard, wherein the 2D video image is encoded as a
first layer according to the multi-layer video coding
extension and the depth image is encoded as a second
layer according to the multi-layer video coding
extension;
- arranging the encoded images in a bitstream in a
particular order, based on the particular 3D video
format that relates to the set of images; and
- indicating the particular order using signaling
information, wherein the particular 3D video format is
one of a plurality of different 3D video formats
according to which the encoded images may be
arranged, and the signaling information indicates the
particular 3D video format from among the plurality
of different 3D video formats.
Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.) (emphases added).
Appeal 2018-006948
Application 13/138,459

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5, 7, 10–12, 15–18, and 28–31 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
US 2009/0103616 A1, published April 23, 2009 (“Ho”) and
US 2010/0091881 A1, published April 15, 2010 (“Pandit”). Final Act. 7–
14.
Claims 8, 9, 32, and 33 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ho, Pandit, and
US 2010/0310155 A1, published Dec. 9, 2010 (“Newton”). Final Act. 14–
16.
Claims 13, 14, and 19–21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ho, Pandit, and
US 2009/0110007 A1, published April 30, 2009 (“Li”). Final Act. 16–24.
ANALYSIS
We review 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).
To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive arguments
for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis in our analysis below.
Appeal 2018-006948
Application 13/138,459

4
Rejection of Claims 1, 5, 7, 10–12, 15–18, and 28–31
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds that claims 1, 5, 7, 10–12, 15–18, and 28–31
would have been obvious over the combination of Ho and Pandit. Final
Act. 7–14. Specifically, the Examiner cites to Ho as teaching the bulk of the
limitations, including “the set of images being encoded by inter-layer
prediction in a manner that exploits redundancy between the 2D video image
and the depth image in the set of images using a multi-layer video coding
extension of a video coding standard” (the “inter-layer prediction
limitation”) and “wherein the 2D video image is encoded as a first layer
according to the multi-layer video coding extension” (the “first layer
limitation”). Id. at 7–8 (citing Ho ¶¶ 7–9, 57). Because “Ho does not
explicitly disclose indicating the particular order using signaling
information,” the Examiner relies on both Ho and Pandit as teaching or
suggesting “arranging the encoded images in a bitstream in a particular
order, based on the particular 3D video format that relates to the set of
images” (the “arranging limitation”). Id. at 8 (citing Pandit ¶¶ 13, 54); see
also id. at 7–8 (citing Ho ¶ 6 as teaching or suggesting “describing multi-
view coding plus a depth image . . .”).
Appellant “disagree[s] with the Examiner’s characterization of the
teachings of the cited portions of Ho” and argues that Ho fails to teach or
suggest the inter-layer prediction limitation, the first layer limitation, and the
arranging limitation. Appeal Br. 16–21. We discuss each of the three
disputed limitations below.
First, Appellant argues “Ho fails to teach or suggest an inter-
prediction between the texture image and the depth image for reducing the
Appeal 2018-006948
Application 13/138,459

5
correlation between said texture image and said depth image and thus does
not disclose” the inter-layer prediction limitation. Appeal Br. 17. However,
it is unclear what claim language Appellant is referring to here. The claim
language does not recite “reducing the correlation.” We are, therefore, not
persuaded of error in the rejection based on this argument. Appellant also
argues that the Examiner relies on “various excerpts from Ho describing
processing of a depth image based on a reference image,” where the
reference image is “the same as a texture image in Ho” and equivalent to a
2D image in claim 1. Appeal Br. 17 (citing Final Act. 2–3). According to
Appellant, Ho’s reference image is, instead, equivalent to a depth image. Id.
at 18–19 (citing Ho Fig. 1, ¶¶ 6, 7, 38).
In response, the Examiner points to Figure 7 of Ho as illustrating an
inter-layer prediction encoding method for a set of images and to Figure 1 of
Ho as illustrating using a depth camera to capture a reference image. Ans. 2
(citing Ho ¶ 6). The Examiner further points to Ho’s Figure 3 and
paragraphs 23, 38, and 45 as describing the depth image is generated by a
left or right view image as a reference image. Id. According to the
Examiner, “Ho discloses multi-layer coding is used because it discloses
different sample rates (image resolution)” and “[t]he method disclosed by
Ho reduces a bit generation rate using a reference image and improves
encoding efficiency.” Id. (citing Ho ¶ 2). Appellant does not address the
Examiner’s response.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner’s
characterization of Ho is incorrect. Ho describes “obtaining a depth image
at a viewpoint and setting the obtained depth image to a reference image”
and “applying a 3D warphing method to the reference image and predicting
Appeal 2018-006948
Application 13/138,459

6
and generating the depth image at a specific viewpoint.” Ho ¶ 23. In
addition, Ho describes a method in which “positions of the pixel values that
exist in a reference image 200 as a two-dimensional image are projected
onto a three-dimensional space 220 using Equation 1.” Id. ¶ 42 (emphasis
added). This image can be generated by either “a left viewpoint image 300”
or “a right viewpoint image 310 as the reference image.” Id. ¶ 45.
Moreover, Ho explicitly describes an “intra-prediction execution unit 720”
that “performs inter-prediction and intra-prediction.” Ho Fig. 7, ¶ 57.
Appellant does not explain how any of these disclosures of Ho are consistent
with Appellant’s characterization of Ho’s use of the term “reference image”
such that it is solely equivalent to a depth image. Given these disclosures,
we do not read Ho’s statement that “[t]he depth image is hereinafter used as
a reference image in the preferred embodiments of the invention,” as
defining a reference image to be equivalent to a depth image. Id. ¶ 38.
Instead, it appears that the reference image referred to by Ho at least
includes a 2D image. Appellant’s arguments do not address why the
Examiner’s rejection is in error given this definition of the term “reference
image.” We, therefore, are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the
Examiner’s rejection is in error with respect to the inter-layer prediction
limitation.
Second, Appellant argues, without further explanation, that Ho does
not teach or suggest, without further explanation, the first layer limitation.
Appeal Br. 19–20. In response, the Examiner states “Ho describes the
texture image as one of the multi-view images and is encoded earlier than
the depth image, according to coding standard H.264.” Ans. 3 (citing Ho
¶¶ 7–9, 57). In addition, the Examiner points to Figure 7 as showing “layers
Appeal 2018-006948
Application 13/138,459

7
of the coding process where the texture image as one of the multi-view
images and is encoded earlier than the depth image” and to paragraph 38 as
describing “a depth image generating method using the reference image,
since the reference image can be obtained in advance.” Id. Appellant does
not address these explanations or disclosures in Ho or explain why they do
not at least suggest the first layer limitation. See Appeal Br. 19–20. This
argument, therefore, does not persuade us of reversible error in the rejection.
Third, Appellant argues that Ho does not teach or suggest the
arranging limitation because Ho does “not mention at all” the language of
this limitation. Id. at 20–21. According to Appellant, the I, B, and P
images, included in Ho Figure 6, “are not descriptive of a 3D format.” Id.
at 21. Appellant adds that “Pandit does not appear to relate to a 2D plus
depth or any other 3D format” and, therefore, “fails to cure the deficiencies
of Ho.” Id. In response, the Examiner explains that “Ho describes ordering
of the coding, according to coding standard H.264.” Ans. 3 (citing Ho
¶¶ 7–9, 57). In addition, the Examiner points to Figure 7 as showing “layers
of the coding process where the texture image as one of the multi-view
images and is encoded earlier than the depth image” and to Figure 6 as
showing “the arrangement of the encoded images.” Id. Appellant does not
address these explanations or disclosures in Ho or explain why they do not at
least suggest the first layer limitation. See Appeal Br. 20–21. This
argument, therefore, does not persuade us of reversible error in the rejection.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
obvious over the combination of Ho and Pandit. We also sustain the
rejection of claims 5, 7, 10–12, 15–18, and 28–31, which are not argued
Appeal 2018-006948
Application 13/138,459

8
separately (see Appeal Br. 22), as obvious over the combination of Ho and
Pandit.
Rejection of Claims 8, 9, 32, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
When arguing the patentability of claims 8, 9, 32, and 33, Appellant
relies on the arguments made for claim 1. Appeal Br. 22–23. As discussed
above, we are not persuaded by these arguments. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 9, 32, and 33 as obvious over the
combination of Ho, Pandit, and Newton.
Rejection of Claims 13, 14, and 19–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
When arguing the patentability of claims 13, 14, and 19–21, Appellant
relies on the arguments made for claim 1. Appeal Br. 23. As discussed
above, we are not persuaded by these arguments. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 14, and 19–21 as obvious over the
combination of Ho, Pandit, and Li.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, 7–21, and 28–33
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2018-006948
Application 13/138,459

9
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 7, 10–
12, 15–18,
28–31
103(a) Ho, Pandit 1, 5, 7, 10–
12, 15–18,
28–31

8, 9, 32, 33 103(a) Ho, Pandit, Newton 8, 9, 32, 33
13, 14, 19–
21
103(a) Ho, Pandit, Li 13, 14, 19–
21

Overall
Outcome
1, 5, 7–21,
28–33

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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED