Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 20, 2018

13689605 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 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.
13/689,605 11/29/2012 Ying Chen 1212-204US01/120915U2 2019
15150 7590 02/22/2018
Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A.
1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
EXAMINER
BRANIFF, CHRISTOPHER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/22/2018 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):
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 2017-005524
Application 13/689,605
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—40, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Qualcomm Incorporated.
Appeal 2017-005524
Application 13/689,605
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to methods and devices “for
separately processing depth and texture components of video data” using “a
supplemental enhancement information message that applies when
processing [a] view component of the video data” and “a nested
supplemental enhancement information message that applies in addition to
the supplemental enhancement information message when processing the
depth component of the view component” (Abstract).
Claims 1, 11,21, and 31 are independent. Independent claim 1,
reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method of processing video data including a view
component comprising a depth component and a texture
component, the method comprising:
determining a supplemental enhancement information
message that applies when processing the view component of
the video data; and
determining a nested supplemental enhancement
information message that applies to the depth component of the
view component in addition to the supplemental enhancement
information message, wherein the supplemental enhancement
information message sets the scope for the nested supplemental
enhancement information message and is separate from the
nested supplemental enhancement information message.
2
Appeal 2017-005524
Application 13/689,605
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS2
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1—8, 11—18, 21—28, and 31—38
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Tian (WO
2010/096189 Al; published Aug. 26, 2010) and Hannuksela (US
2008/0013620 Al; published Jan. 17, 2008).
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 9, 10, 19, 20, 29, 30, 39, and 40
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Tian, Hannuksela, and
Jeon (US 2010/0111183 Al; published May 6, 2010).
ANALYSIS
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Tian teaches “a
supplemental enhancement information message that applies when
processing the view component of the video data,” wherein “the
supplemental enhancement information message ... is separate from the
nested supplemental enhancement information message” that “applies to the
depth component of the view component,” as claimed (Final Act. 9—10; Ans.
11—12). Particularly, the Examiner finds Tian’s Table 8 discloses “a
message designated as ‘three_dv_format(payloadSize)’ that constitutes a SEI
[supplemental enhancement information] message for a view component,”
and “a message designated as ‘depth_present_flag[3dv_view_id]’ that
constitutes a nested SEI message for a depth component,” as required by
2 Claims 1—40 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or
35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the
written description requirement (Final Act. 7—8). However, this rejection
was withdrawn in the Examiner’s Advisory Action (mailed Nov. 19, 2015),
and is no longer pending on appeal (Advisory Act. 2).
3
Appeal 2017-005524
Application 13/689,605
claim 1 (Ans. 11 (emphases added) (citing Tian 24:29-32, 26:13—16, Table
8)). The Examiner finds Tian’s SEI messages are “separate” as required by
claim 1 because “depth_present_flag[3dv_view_id]” has “a different name”
and “is subordinate to” the “three_dv_format(payloadSize)” message in
Tian’s Table 8 (Ans. 11). We do not agree.
We agree with Appellants that Tian does not teach or suggest a view
component’s SEI message “is separate from” a depth component’s nested
SEI message that “applies to the depth component of the view component in
addition to the [view component’s SEI] message,” as recited in claim 1
(App. Br. 9—11).3 As Appellants explain, Tian’s “Table 8 represents a
single supplemental enhancement message” that “includes two separate
syntax elements”—the “‘depth_present_flag[3dv_view_id]’ syntax element”
and the “‘three_dv_format(payloadSize)’ syntax element” indicating the
“SEI message name” (App. Br. 9—10 (citing Tian 24:31—32, Table 8); Reply
Br. 4—5). That is, Tian’s “depth_present_flag[3dv_view_id]” and
“three_dv_format(payloadSize)” are merely “syntax elements [that] are part
of the same SEI message,” not separate SEI messages as required by claim 1
(Reply Br. 5; see also Tian 24:8—26 (describing syntax elements in a SEI
message)).
As recognized by Appellants, Tian never states, nor would a person of
ordinary skill in the art understand, that the syntax elements of a single SEI
message represent different SEI messages (Reply Br. 5). An “SEI message”
is a term of art designating a type of network abstraction layer (NAL) unit
The Appeal Brief citations are to the brief filed on March 23, 2016.
4
3
Appeal 2017-005524
Application 13/689,605
(see Spec. ]Hf 64—65).4 The Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed term
“nested supplemental enhancement information message” as reading on
Tian’s “depth_present_flag” syntax element is unduly broad (Ans. 11—12).
Hannuksela does not make up for the above-noted deficiencies of
Tian. Hannuksela at most discloses a scalable nesting SEI message
containing a nested SEI message; however, Hannuksela does not teach or
suggest a nested SEI message that applies to the depth component of the
view component in addition to the separate SEI message that applies to the
view component, as required by claim 1 (App. Br. 11 (citing Hannuksela
141)).
The Examiner does not use the additional teachings of Jeon to cure the
above-noted deficiencies of Tian and Hannuksela. Thus, for the reasons set
forth above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
1, independent claims 11,21, and 31, argued for substantially the same
reasons as claim 1, and claims 2—10, 12—20, 22—30, and 32-40 dependent
therefrom (App. Br. 12—13).5
4 Appellants’ Specification describes “parameter set NAL units may be
transmitted on a different channel than other NAL units, such as
Supplemental Enhancement Information (SEI) NAL units. SEI NAL units
(referred to as SEI messages) may contain information that is not necessary
for decoding the coded pictures samples from video coding layer (VCL)
NAL units, but may assist in processes related to decoding, display, error
resilience, and other purposes” (see Spec. Tflf 64—65 (emphasis added)).
5 In the event of any further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider
a rejection of independent claims 11 and 21, under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or
35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as a single means which is non­
enabling for the scope of the claim. See MPEP § 2164.08(a). See also In re
Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714—15 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (A single means claim which
covered every conceivable means for achieving the stated purpose was held
5
Appeal 2017-005524
Application 13/689,605
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—40 is reversed.
REVERSED
non-enabling for the scope of the claim because the specification disclosed
at most only those means known to the inventor); Ex parte Rodriguez,
Appeal No. 2008-000693 (BPAI October 1, 2009) (precedential) (discussing
functional claiming and scope of enablement). In particular, claim 11 recites
“a processor” for various functional purposes; thus the claim comprises, at
best, a single means because the claimed “processor” is a nonce word that
fails to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for a particular
structure capable of performing the recited functions. See Williamson v.
Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Similarly, claim
21 recites “means” for various functional purposes but recites no particular
structure to perform the claimed “determining,” and does not indicate that
multiple “means” are required “for determining.”
Additionally, the Examiner may also wish to consider a rejection of
independent claims 1, 11,21, and 31, under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or
35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as being incomplete as these
claims are missing essential steps or necessary structural cooperative
relationships describing a use for the “supplemental enhancement
information message” and “nested supplemental enhancement information
message.” See MPEP § 2164.08(c). See also In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229
(CCPA 1976). In particular, claims 1, 11, 21, and 31 merely recite
“determining” SEI messages without indicating how these messages are
used for “processing [the] video data” recited in these claims.
6