Ex Parte Chien et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2019

13536218 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/536,218 06/28/2012
15150 7590 03/04/2019
Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A.
1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Wei-Jung Chien
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.
1010-887US01/l 12751 2775
EXAMINER
CHANG, DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2489
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/04/2019 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):
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 WEI-JUNG CHIEN, PEISONG CHEN,
and MARTA KARCZEWICZ
Appeal2018-000028
Application 13/536,218
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ADAM J. PYONIN, and SHARON
PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-33. 1 App. Br. 4. Claims App'x. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Qualcomm Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-000028
Application 13/536,218
Introduction
According to Appellants, the claimed subject matter relates to entropy
video coding for motion compensation in video coding. Spec. ,r 2. In
particular, a video coder is used to jointly code difference values for x-
component information and y-component information of a motion vector
into an encoded bitstream in an interleaved manner such that a first portion
of they-component is coded before a portion of the x-component, and a
second portion of the x-component is coded before a portion of they-
component. Id. ,r,r 5, 22.
Representative Claim
Claims 1, 9, 18, and 26 are independent. Independent claim 1 is
representative, and is reproduced below with limitation at issue italicized:
1. A method of entropy coding video data, the method
compnsmg:
when an absolute value of an x-component of a first motion vector
difference value for a current block of video data is greater than zero,
and when an absolute value of a y-component of the first motion
vector difference value for the current block of video data is greater
than zero, entropy coding, by a video coder, information
representative of the first motion vector difference value, wherein
entropy coding the information representative of the first motion
vector difference value comprises:
coding, by the video coder, interleaved information from or into
an encoded video bitstream, wherein the interleaved information
includes information associated with the x-component of the first
motion vector difference value and information associated with the
y-component of the first motion vector difference value such that at
least a first portion of the information associated with they-
component of the first motion vector difference value is coded before
at least a first portion of the information associated with the x-
component of the first motion vector difference value, and at least a
second portion of the information associated with the x-component of
2
Appeal2018-000028
Application 13/536,218
the first motion vector difference value is coded before at least a
second portion of the information associated with the y-component
of the first motion vector difference value,
wherein the information associated with the x-component of the
first motion vector difference value includes information indicative
that the absolute value of the x-component of the first motion vector
difference value for the current block of video data is greater than
zero, information representative of the absolute value of the x-
component of the first motion vector difference value, and a sign of
the x-component of the first motion vector difference value, and
wherein the information associated with the y-component of the
first motion vector difference value includes information indicative
that the absolute value of the y-component of the first motion vector
difference value is greater than zero, information representative of the
absolute value of they-component of the first motion vector difference
value, and a sign of they-component of the first motion vector
difference value.
Khmelnitsky et al.
Holcomb
Kikuchi et al.
References Relied Upon
us 5,847,776
US 2005/0053295 Al
US 2007/0211802 Al
Dec. 8, 1998
Mar. 10, 2005
Sep. 13,2007
Marpe et al., Context-Based Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding
in the H.264/AVC Video Compression Standard, IEEE Transactions
on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, Vol. 13, No. 7,
620-36 (2003).
Chien et al., CEJ 2: Adaptive Motion Vector Resolution from
Qualcomm, (JCT-VC) ofITU-T SGI6 WP3 and ISO/IEC
JTC1/SC29/WGI1 No. m19173, Doc: JCTVC-D394, 1-4 (2011).
Rejections on Appeal2
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the written description rejection previously
entered against claims 1-33 under 35 USC 112, 1st paragraph. Advisory
Act. 2.
3
Appeal2018-000028
Application 13/536,218
Claims 1-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 12-13.
Claims 1, 9, 17, 18, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Marpe and Holcomb. Final Act.
14--21.
Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 19, 20, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Marpe, Holcomb,
and Kikuchi. Id. at 21-25.
Claims 4--7, 12-15, 21-24, and 29-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Marpe, Holcomb,
and Chien. Id. at 26-35.
Claims 8, 16, 25, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Marpe, Holcomb, and
Khmelnitsky. Id. at 36-38.
ANALYSIS 3
§ 1 OJ Rejection
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas" are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014).
3 We refer to Appellants' arguments and the Examiner's findings and
conclusions set forth in the Final Office Action (mailed August 22, 2016)
("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief (filed, February 27, 2017) ("App. Br."), the
Answer (mailed July 28, 2017) ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief (filed
September 28, 2017) ("Reply Br.") for the respective details.
4
Appeal2018-000028
Application 13/536,218
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217-18 ( citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is "directed to." See id. at 219
("On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk."); see also Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) ("Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners' application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.").
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594--95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as "molding rubber products" (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192
(1981)); "tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267---68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that "[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 ("We
view respondents' claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
5
Appeal2018-000028
Application 13/536,218
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula."). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim "seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract ... is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, ... and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment." Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 ("It is now
commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.").
If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we tum to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an "'inventive
concept"' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221. "A claim that recites an
abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is
more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]."' Id.
(alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). "[M]erely
requir[ ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[ s] to transform that
abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("2019 PEG"). Under the 2019 PEG, we first
look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing
human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes); and
6
Appeal2018-000028
Application 13/536,218
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h)). 4
See 2019 PEG at 52, 55-56. Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception
and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, does the
office then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that are not
"well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
( 4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
See 2019 PEG at 56.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in concluding that claims 1-33
are directed to the abstract idea of "an algorithm for converting binary coded
decimal to pure binary". App. Br. 14. In particular, Appellants argue the
Examiner mischaracterized the claimed invention as merely using an
algorithm for encoding/ decoding video data from one type of numerical
representation to another, and the Examiner consequently misapplied the
Gottschalk v. Benson precedent to arrive to the asserted conclusion. Id. at
15. Instead, Appellants submit that the claims are directed to encoding a
bitstream by coding interleaved information including information
associated with the x-component of a motion vector difference value and
information associated with the y-component of the same motion vector
difference value. Id. at 16-17. According to Appellants, the Examiner's
patent eligibility analysis fails to appreciate that the claimed coding of
interleaved information provides the benefit of improving computer
functionality in the technology of video coding, and thereby renders the
4 All references to the MPEP are to Rev. 08.2017 (Jan. 2018).
7
Appeal2018-000028
Application 13/536,218
claimed subject matter patent-eligible to pursuant to the Enfish5 decision.
Id. at 17-18, Spec. ,r,r 22, 29, 58 (indicating that coding information in an
interleaved manner improves entropy coding performance, throughput,
and/or efficiency).
These arguments are persuasive. As an initial matter, we note the
method of independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, "a method of entropy
coding video data," which is categorized as a process, one of the recognized
statutory classes of inventions. As correctly noted by the Examiner,
consistent with the Benson precedent, a video coder simply coding a video
bitstream is analogous to Benson's mathematical algorithm merely to
convert data from one form (BCD) to another (pure Binary), and thus not
directed to patent eligible subject matter. Ans. 18; Gottschalk v. Benson,
409 U.S. 63, 69. However, we do not agree with the Examiner that the
claimed recitation of a video coder coding interleaved information is
directed to an algorithm for merely converting data from one form to
another. Ans. 18. We likewise do not agree with the Examiner that the
claimed coding of interleaved information merely improves the algorithm as
opposed to improving the functionality of the video coder itself. Id. at 20.
Appellants' Specification supports that the video coder coding of interleaved
information reduces the complexity of a video coding bitstream, which may
result in a lower bitrate for coded video, and may increase the entropy
coding efficiency and/ or throughput when using other entropy techniques,
such as VLC, and CA VLC. Spec. ,r,r 29, 58. Therefore, as persuasively
argued by Appellants, the claimed recitation of the video coder coding
interleaved information results in improving functionality of the video coder
5 Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir 2016).
8
Appeal2018-000028
Application 13/536,218
(i.e., its entropy coding, performance, throughput and efficiency). Thus,
regardless that the algorithm within claim 1 by itself may constitute patent-
ineligible subject matter, taken as a whole, claim 1 integrates the algorithm
into a practical application for coding a video bitstream. Diehr, 450 U.S. at
192-93 ( explaining "when a claim containing a mathematical formula
implements or applies that formula in a structure or process which, when
considered as a whole, is performing a function which the patent laws were
designed to protect ... then the claim satisfies the requirements of§ 101 ");
see MPEP 2106.05(a)II. We, therefore, determine claim 1 is directed to
patent eligible subject matter. Accordingly, we do not address Step 2B of
the Revised Guidance ( approximately corresponding to step two of the
Alice/Mayo test).
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the§ 101 rejection of
claim 1. We, likewise, do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-33, which
recite similar limitations.
§ 103 Rejection
"Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when 'the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.'" KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007) ("KSR"). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of
underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the
prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called
9
Appeal2018-000028
Application 13/536,218
secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18
(1966).
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 over the
combination of Marpe and Holcomb because, as acknowledged by the
Examiner, neither reference teaches or suggests "coding, by the video coder,
interleaved information ... such that at least a first portion of the
information associated with they-component of the first motion vector
difference value is coded before at least a first portion of the information
associated with the x-component of the first motion vector difference
value". App. Br. 35. Further, Appellants argue that Examiner's reliance
upon In re Japiske 6 as a precedent to switch the coding order of x-
component and y-component of motion vector difference values in Holcomb
would change the manner of operation of Holcomb, and would not cure the
admitted deficiencies of the proposed combination of references. Id. at 36-
40 (citing Holcomb, Fig. 36, ,r 186). In particular, Appellants argue that
Holcomb's disclosure in Figure 36 teaches encoding all information related
to x-component before encoding any information related to y-component, as
opposed to encoding the information in an interleaved manner such that a y-
component for a motion vector difference value is encoded before encoding
an x-component for the same motion vector difference value. Id. at 39--40
( citing Holcomb ,r 384). This argument is persuasive.
At the outset, we note the Examiner admits the following:
Marpe and Holcomb do not explicitly disclose wherein the
interleaved information includes information associated with the x-
component of the first motion vector difference value and information
associated with the y-component of the first motion vector difference
6 In Re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70
10
Appeal2018-000028
Application 13/536,218
value such that at least a first portion of the information associated
with the y-component of the first motion vector difference value is
coded before at least a first portion of the information associated with
the x-component of the first motion vector difference value.
Final Act. 18.
The Examiner nonetheless relies upon Holcomb for its teaching of
coding the x-component of a motion vector difference value before coding
they-component thereof. Final Act. 16-17 (citing Holcomb ,r 384, Fig. 36).
Further, the Examiner relies upon the In re Japiske precedent along with
Holcomb's disclosure of changing the ordering of stages in flow diagrams as
a rationale to modify Holcomb's encoding order of the x and y components
of the motion vector difference values. Id. at 18-19. According to the
Examiner, changing Holcomb's encoding order of the motion vector
differential components would not change the encoding operation of
Holcomb's video encoder. Ans. 65. Notwithstanding the lack of evidence
on this record to support this latter assertion, we agree with Appellants that
even if the cited portions of Holcomb and Marpe were combined in the
manner proposed by the Examiner, the resulting combination would still fail
to remedy the noted deficiencies acknowledged by the Examiner. At best,
the proposed combination would result in the video encoder encoding all the
y-components of the motion vector difference value, then encoding all the x-
components thereof. In other words, as persuasively argued by Appellants,
the combination would still fall short of teaching the interleaved encoding
wherein the video encoder encodes a y-component before encoding an x-
component of a same motion vector difference value.
Because Appellants have shown at least one reversible error in the
rejection of claim 1, we need not reach Appellants' remaining arguments.
11
Appeal2018-000028
Application 13/536,218
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1. Likewise, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 9, 18, and 26, which recites the disputed limitations.
Because claims 2-8, 10-17, 19-25, and 27-33 depend from
independent claims 1, 9, 18, and 26 discussed above and necessarily
incorporate all of the limitations of their respective base claims, we do not
sustain the obviousness rejection of the cited dependent claims for the same
reasons.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the patent ineligibility rejection as
well as the obviousness rejections of claims 1-33.
REVERSED
12