Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2016

13415453 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/415,453 03/08/2012
15150 7590 09/26/2016
Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A.
1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ying Chen
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1212-136US01/l l 1278 4686
EXAMINER
LI, TRACYY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2016 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):
pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YING CHEN, MUHAMMED ZEYD COBAN,
PEISONG CHEN, and MARTA KARCZEWICZ
Appeal2015-007427
Application 13/415,453
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, IRVINE. BRANCH, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
3, 5-10, 12-15, 17-22, 24--27, 29, 36-39, 41--46, and 48-56. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-007427
Application 13/415,453
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to techniques for coding video data for
random access. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of encoding video data, the method comprising:
encoding, with a video encoder, a group of pictures that
includes a random access picture and one or more potentially
unnecessary pictures that precede the random access picture in
display order;
determining, with the video encoder, if any of the one or
more potentially unnecessary pictures is decodable in the case
that the random access picture is used for random access; and
signaling, with the video encoder, a syntax element in a
network abstraction layer (NAL) unit header indicating whether
or not one of the potentially unnecessary pictures is determined
to be decodable in the case that the random access picture is used
for random access.
REJECTIONS 1
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 34, 36,
37, 39, 41, 42, 46, and 48 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
1 The REJECTIONS section here refers to the claims as pending before
Appellants' after-final amendment (see Amendment filed November 5,
2014), which the Examiner entered (see Advisory Action mailed November
28, 2014). Among other amendments, Appellants amended claim 1 to
include subject matter previously included in claim 2 (Amendment 2) and
rejected as obvious over Walker, Hannuksela, and Lin (see, e.g., Ans. 4--5).
In the Appeal Brief, Appellants argue the rejections as if the amendments
had not been entered. See generally App. Br. 8-18 (arguing claim 1 under a
heading that does not include Lin). We do not attempt to sort out the
Examiner's rejections vis-a-vis the subject matter of Appellants' post-
2
Appeal2015-007427
Application 13/415,453
as unpatentable over Walker (US 2007/0073779 Al; published Mar. 29,
2007) and Hannuksela (US 2008/0205511 Al; published Aug. 28, 2008).
Ans. 2--4.
Claims 2, 9, 14, 21, 26, 33, 38, and 45 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Walker, Hannuksela, and Lin
(US 2010/0008420 Al; published Jan. 14, 2010). Ans. 4--5.
Claims 7, 8, 19, 20, 31, 32, 43, and 44 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Walker, Hannuksela, and Nagumo
(US 2007/0003149 Al; published Jan. 4, 2007). Ans. 5---6.
Claims 49-55 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Walker, Hannuksela, and "Hannuksela II" (US
2004/0066854 Al; published Apr. 8, 2004). Ans. 6.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 is erroneous
for various reasons. App. Br. 8-12. Appellants argue the remaining claims
based on arguments presented with respect to claim 1, only nominally
arguing the rejections under separate headings. See generally id. 12-19.
Accordingly, this appeal turns on whether we are persuaded of error based
on Appellants' arguments as to claim 1.
We are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 for
the reasons stated by the Examiner. Ans. 2-3, 7-9. We note the following
for emphasis.
amendment claims, except with respect to claim 1, which we review as
rejected over Walker, Hannuksela, and Lin.
3
Appeal2015-007427
Application 13/415,453
Initially, although we do not rely on this in coming to our decision, we
note that Appellants' claim 1 includes two conditional limitations: the
"determining" limitation and the "signaling" limitation. Both of these
limitations recite being performed "in the case that the random access
picture is used for random access." As such, the conditional limitations
would not be performed when the random access picture is not used for
random access. Should further prosecution ensue, the Examiner might
consider whether claim 1 reads on prior art in which a random access picture
is not used for random access, in which case, only the "encoding" limitation
would be operable in the claim.
With respect to Appellants' arguments that the cited references do not
teach or suggest "encoding, with a video encoder, a group of pictures that
includes a random access picture and one or more potentially unnecessary
pictures that precede the random access picture in display order," we note
that this subject matter includes subject matter from claim 2 that Appellants'
incorporated by amendment into claim 1 after the Final Rejection. See
Amendment in Response to Final Office Action filed Nov. 5, 2014; Final
Act. mailed Sept. 5, 2014. As such, the subject matter of presently-pending
claim 1 includes subject matter the Examiner addressed in concluding that
claim 2 would have been obvious over Walker, Hannuksela, and Lin. See
Final Office Action 5---6; Ans. 4--5.
In rejecting claim 2 over Walker, Hannuksela, and Lin, the Examiner
reasons that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of Appellants' invention to
modify the method of encoding video data disclosed by Walker
to include the signaling a syntax element in a network abstract
layer (NAL) unit header indicating whether or not one of the
4
Appeal2015-007427
Application 13/415,453
potentially unnecessary pictures is determined to be decodable of
Hannuksela and the one or more potentially unnecessary pictures
precede the random access picture [] in display order of Lin, in
order to provide easily accessible information in transport
packets or file format aggregation NAL units based on which a
network middlebox or a media player can decide which coded
data units to be transmitted, as taught by Hannuksela (e.g.[,]
[0018]) and solve the problem in that the processing mechanism
of a decoder is complicated when multi-reference frames exist in
an inter-frame prediction encoded image, as taught by Lin (e.g.
[,] [0016]).
Ans. 4--5.
Appellants' arguments (Reply Br. 5-7) in response to the Examiner's
Answer do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's case that claim 2 would
have been obvious over Walker, Hannuksela, and Lin. Ans. 4--5, 7-9. In
particular, Appellants' arguments (Reply Br. 5-7) unpersuasively attack
individual references when the Examiner's rejection is based on what the
combined teachings of Walker, Hannuksela, and Lin would have taught or
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art (Ans. 4--5). See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants, for example, discuss the shortcomings of Hannuksela with
respect to claim 1 's "signaling, with the video encoder, a syntax element in a
network abstraction layer (NAL) unit header indicating whether or not one
of the potentially unnecessary pictures is determined to be decodable in the
case that the random access picture is used for random access." Reply Br.
5-7. But the basis for Appellants' argument is that Hannuksela' s "redundant
coded pictures" are not "potentially unnecessary pictures that precede the
random access picture in display order." Id. This overlooks that the
Examiner cited Lin for "potentially unnecessary pictures [that] precede the
5
Appeal2015-007427
Application 13/415,453
random access picture in in display order." Ans. 4 (citing Lin iii! 64, 79).
Appellants' arguments against Hannuksela alone are, therefore,
unpersuasive.
DECISION
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's decision to reject
claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-15, 17-22, 24--27, 29, 36-39, 41--46, and 48-56.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6