Ex Parte Chen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 16, 201713689560 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/689,560 11/29/2012 Ying Chen 1212-206US01/120915U4 8857 15150 7590 08/18/2017 Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A. 1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100 Woodbury, MN 55125 EXAMINER BRANIFF, CHRISTOPHER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2484 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/18/2017 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 and YE-KUI WANG Appeal 2017-002834 Application 13/689,5601 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—36. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify Qualcomm Incorporated as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 3.) Appeal 2017-002834 Application 13/689,560 THE INVENTION Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to separately coding depth and texture components of video data. (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of processing video data including a coded video sequence comprising one or more view components, each of the one or more view components comprising one or more depth components and one or more texture components, the method comprising: determining first sequence level information describing characteristics of the texture components or the depth components of the one or more view components included within the coded video sequence; and determining second sequence level information describing characteristics of an operation point of the video data, wherein the operation point defines a combination of views to be extracted from the video data, and wherein the operation point identifies the texture components and the depth components of the one or more view components such that the texture components and the depth components are separately extractable from the one or more view components. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1—5, 9—14, 18—23, 27—32, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 2010/0111183 Al, pub. May 6, 2010) and Sullivan et al., “Editors’ Draft Revision to ITU-T Rec. H.264 IISO/IEC 1449-10 Advanced Video Coding - In Preparation for ITU-TSG 16 AAP Consent,” (Joint Video Team (JVT) of ISO/IEC MPEG & ITU-T VCEG, 30th Meeting: Geneva, CH, February 2009, Document: JVT-AA007). (Final Act. 6-10.) 2 Appeal 2017-002834 Application 13/689,560 The Examiner rejected claims 6—8, 15—17, 24—26, and 33—35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon, Sullivan, and Tian et al. (WO 2010/096189 Al, pub. Aug. 26, 2010). (Final Act. 10-12.) ISSUE ON APPEAL Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following dispositive issue:2 Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Jeon and Sullivan teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitation: determining second sequence level information describing characteristics of an operation point of the video data, wherein the operation point defines a combination of views to be extracted from the video data, and wherein the operation point identifies the texture components and the depth components of the one or more view components such that the texture components and the depth components are separately extractable from the one or more view components; and the commensurate limitation recited in independent claims 10, 19, and 28. (App. Br. 8-14.) ANALYSIS For the limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Jeon of decoding video signals using headers containing configuration information, including view identification information, which the Examiner 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the findings of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Mar. 23, 2016, “App. Br.”); the Reply Brief (filed Dec. 21, 2016 “Reply Br.”); the Final Office Action (mailed Sept. 15, 2015, “Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Oct. 21, 2016, “Ans.”) for the respective details. 3 Appeal 2017-002834 Application 13/689,560 finds “teaches determining second sequence level information describing characteristics of an operation point of the video data, as recited by claim 1.” (Final Act. 7; Ans. 9; Jeon Fig. 14, || 67, 214.) However, the Examiner concedes Jeon does not teach or suggest the ability of the operation point to identify the texture components and the depth components of the view components such that they are “separately extractable.” (Final Act. 7.) For that aspect of the claims, the Examiner relies on the definition of “operation point” in Sullivan, identifying target output views, and also relies on disclosures in other portions of Sullivan regarding luma and chroma data (which the Examiner associates with texture components) and disparity information (which the Examiner associates with depth components). (Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 10-11; Sullivan §§ C.2.1, H.3.1, G.8.8.2, H.3.31, H.10.1, H.13.2.4.) Appellants argue, inter alia, nothing in Sullivan teaches or suggests that the disclosed operation point provides the ability for texture components and the depth components to be separately extractable from the view components. (App. Br. 10.) The Examiner finds: By identifying the target output views, Sullivan discloses an operation point that defines a combination of views associated with the video data, and further teaches that the associated view components are separately extractable — can be removed separately from the decoded picture buffer and, by extension, the bitstream. [AJppellants argue that Sullivan indicates that the operation point defines views to be used for sub-bitstream extraction without any reference depth or texture components of the views. However, Sullivan teaches that the depth — e.g., disparity — may be extracted from a sub-bitstream (Sullivan: page 652, section H.13.2.4) as well as luma and chroma data (Sullivan: pages 556-557, section G.8.8.2). Such luma and 4 Appeal 2017-002834 Application 13/689,560 chroma data constitute texture — e.g., color — components of the coded video. (Ans. 11.) However, as Appellants point out, Sullivan’s disclosure of luma, chroma, and disparity information appears in portions of this 661-page standards document unrelated to any discussion of operation points, and we are unable to discern from the Examiner’s citations or discussion a sufficient teaching or suggestion of an operation point providing the ability for texture components and the depth components to be separately extractable from the view components, as required by the claims. (App. Br. 11—13.) Therefore, on the record before us, we are constrained to find the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claims 1, 10, 19, and 28. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 10, 19, and 28 over Jeon and Sullivan. We also do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2—5, 9, 11—14, 18, 20-23, 27, 29—32, and 36 over Jeon and Sullivan, and of claims 6—8, 15— 17, 24—26, and 33—35 over Jeon, Sullivan, and Tian, which claims are dependent from claims 1, 10, 19, or 28. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—36. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation