Ex Parte Ameres et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 24, 2018

13599360 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2018)

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.
13/599,360 08/30/2012 Eric Ameres GOGL-109-F 5012
97818
Google LLC
c/o Young Basi
3001 West Big
7590 01/26/2018 EXAMINER
le Hanlon & MacFarlane, P.C.
Beaver Rd., Ste. 624
ANDERSON II, JAMES M
Troy, MI 48084-3107 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/26/2018 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):
docketing @ youngbasile. com
audit @ youngbasile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC AMERES, JAMES BANKOSKI, SCOTT LAVARNWAY,
YAOWU XU, DAN MILLER, ADRIAN GRANGE, and PAUL WILKINS
Appeal 2017-006450
Application 13/599,360
Technology Center 2486
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appeal 2017-006450
Application 13/599,360
Appellants filed a Request for Rehearing under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.52(a)(1) (“Request”) on (Dec. 12, 2017), for reconsideration of our
Decision mailed (Nov. 13, 2017) (“Decision”).1 The Decision affirmed the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4—11, 13—16, and 21—25. We
reconsider our decision in light of Appellants’ Request for Rehearing, but
we decline to change the decision.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on Request for Rehearing.
1. A method for decoding a video signal having a plurality of
frames including a current frame, comprising:
generating an alternate reference frame, wherein the
alternate reference frame occurs prior to the current frame in the
video signal and wherein the alternate reference frame is other
than a frame immediately prior to the current frame;
detecting, after generating the alternate reference frame,
an error in the current frame and reporting the detected error;
receiving a recovery frame in response to reporting the
detected error; and
decoding the recovery frame using the alternate reference
frame.
App. Br. 9-10 (Claims Appendix).
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive for the reasons given in
our prior Decision. For the reasons given in the Final Rejection and
Examiner’s Answer, we agree with the Examiner’s findings (Final Act. 2—
12; Ans. 11—12) that exemplary independent claims 1 and 10 are obvious
1 “The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed
to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board.” 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.52(a)(1).
2
Appeal 2017-006450
Application 13/599,360
over Cosman (US 2006/0098738 Al, pub. May 11, 2006) and Wiegand
{LONG-TERM MEMORY MOTION-COMPENSATED PREDICTION FOR
ROBUST VIDEO TRANSMISSION, 0-7803-6297-7 (2000) IEEE. We
highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellants simply repeat their contentions from their Appeal and
Reply Briefs and contend:
1. Both Cosman and Wiegand are directed to techniques wherein the
encoder receives feedback indicating a decoding error such that
that the most recent reference frame at the decoder differs from the
corresponding frame at the encoder, and, in response, the encoder
redecodes the most recent reference frame to match the
corresponding frame at the decoder so that the re-decoded most
recent reference frame can be used. Appeal 5-6. Given that both
Cosman and Wiegand describe re-decoding frames at the encoder
in response to feedback, and that neither Cosman nor Wiegand
describes using a long-term reference frame in response
to feedback, Appellant respectfully submits that “generating a
recovery frame in response to the received report, and encoding the
recovery frame using the alternate reference frame,” as recited by
independent claim 10, is not obvious. Appeal 6.
Request 4.
2. The Board also overlooked or misapprehended Appellant’s
arguments that the Wiegand does not disclose “encoding the
recovery frame,” as recited by independent claim 10. Appeal 6-7,
Reply 2-3. In particular, the Examiner expressly admits that
“Wiegand fails to disclose using the alternate reference frame to
encode the feedback frame.” Final Act. 7. The
Examiner’s phrasing implies that “using the alternate reference
frame” is the sole operative element that Wiegand fails to disclose;
however, this phrasing obfuscates the more significant deficiency
of Wiegand, that Wiegand does not teach, suggest, or imply
“[encoding] the recovery frame” at all. Appeal 7, Reply 3.”
Request 5.
3. To the extent that Examiner is arguing that any operation of the
encoder with respect to a feedback frame qualifies as encoding the
3
Appeal 2017-006450
Application 13/599,360
feedback frame, Appellant respectfully submits that “[one] skilled
in the art would not consider the operations of the encoder with
respect to the "feedback frame" described by Wiegand as being
equivalent to "encoding the recovery frame" as recited by
independent claim 10.” Final Act. 2. For example, one skilled in
the art would not considering receiving a NACK to be equivalent
to encoding a feedback frame. Furthermore, one skilled in the art
would not consider “error concealment in the feedback frame” as
being equivalent to encoding the feedback frame. “When a portion
of [a] received frame is corrupted, the decoder’s post-processing
methods seek to conceal this from the viewer [using
error concealment], (Cosman A [0033]).” Appeal 5. “Thus, “[the
encoder uses] the feedback information to decode a past frame so
that it is identical to the decoder’s version of that frame.” (Cosman
A [0076], see also Wiegand § 4.2, NACK mode).” Appeal 5.
Request 6.
4. The Board also either overlooked or misapprehended Appellant’s
arguments showing that combining Cosman and Wiegand as
suggested by the Examiner would not have produced the asserted
benefit of increasing the robustness of a video codec. In particular,
Appellant argued that both Cosman and Wiegand describe
substantially similar subject matter. For example, “both Cosman
and Wiegand describe feedback based techniques for addressing
error propagation when multiple reference frames and error
concealment are used.” Appeal 5. Wiegand is cited narrowly for
the content of section 4.2, which the Examiner concludes
“discloses robust video transmission wherein a feedback frame, i.e.
a recovery frame, is generated in response to a received error
report from the decoder.” However, Cosman describes “the use of
feedback from the decoder[, wherein] the encoder knows which
GOBs were received intact and which ones were dropped, [and]
can simulate the decoder's operation exactly, including error
concealment.” Cosman, [0076]; Appeal 5.
Request 7—8.
Appellants’ contentions are restatements of the arguments presented
in Appellants’ briefing as to alleged errors in the Examiner’s fact finding.
4
Appeal 2017-006450
Application 13/599,360
Appellants’ arguments were addressed in our decision (Decision 4—6) and
will not be repeated here. We find that Appellants’ restatements of
arguments are addressed to the Examiner’s application of the references
rather than to points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by
the Board. Based on the Examiner’s claim construction, we agreed with
findings and conclusions made by the Examiner (see Final Act. 2—11; Ans.
6—7). Appellants have failed to show any matter that was misapprehended
or overlooked by the Board in rendering this Decision.
We decline to change our prior Decision.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we grant Appellants’ Request for
Rehearing to the extent of reconsidering our decision, but we deny
Appellants’ request with respect to making any change thereto.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
REHEARING DENIED
5