Ex Parte Demos

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2019

13325773 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/325,773 12/14/2011
143308 7590 03/04/2019
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (Dolby)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gary A. Demos
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.
07314-0013009 4416
EXAMINER
LEE, YYOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
patents@dolby.com
mguo@dolby.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GARY A. DEMOS
Appeal2017-004232
Application 13/325,773
Technology Center 2400
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-004232
Application 13/325,773
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 16 and 17. App. Br. 1. 2 Claims 1-15 were canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was
conducted on February 13, 2019. A transcript will be made of record in due
course.
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention is a video-decoding method. Spec. ,r 2. The
method purportedly improves compressed image-chroma information in
MPEG-like video-compression systems. Id.
Claim 16 is reproduced below with our emphasis:
16. A method for decoding a color space representation of video
macroblocks in a computerized video system having at least a
decoder, the method comprising:
receiving, at a decoder, a first chroma quantization
parameter bias value for a first chroma channel and a second
chroma quantization parameter bias value for a second chroma
channel for a macroblock,
wherein the first chroma quantization parameter
bias value and the second chroma quantization parameter
bias value differ from each other for the macroblock, and
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Dolby Laboratories
Licensing Corporation. App. Br. 1.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Non-Final Rejection ("Non-
Final"), mailed November 24, 2015; the Final Rejection ("Final Act."),
mailed March 10, 2016; the Appeal Brief ("App. Br."), filed October 11,
2016; the Examiner's Answer ("Ans."), mailed November 4, 2016; and the
Reply Brief ("Reply Br."), filed January 4, 2017.
2
Appeal2017-004232
Application 13/325,773
wherein the first chroma quantization parameter
bias value, the second chroma quantization parameter bias
value, and a luminance quantization parameter relates to
the macroblock; and
constructing, with the decoder, a first chrominance
quantization parameter for the macroblock by determining the
first chrominance quantization parameter using the received first
chroma quantization parameter bias value and the luminance
quantization parameter;
constructing, with the decoder, a second chrominance
quantization parameter for the macroblock by determining the
second chrominance quantization parameter using the received
second chroma quantization parameter bias value and the
luminance quantization parameter; and
decompressing the macroblock using the luminance
quantization parameter, the constructed first chrominance
quantization parameter and the constructed second chrominance
quantization parameter;
applying the first chrominance quantization parameter to
derive a first scaling coefficient for an AC coefficient of a
transform output; and
applying the first chrominance quantization parameter to
derive a second scaling coefficient for a DC coefficient of the
transform output.
App. Br. 12 (Claims Appendix).
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Haskell et al. US 2006/0002467 Al
Reininger et al. US 5,426,463
THE REJECTIONS
Jan. 5,2006
June 20, 1995
Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Haskell and Reininger. Non-Final 2--4; Final Act. 2.
3
Appeal2017-004232
Application 13/325,773
Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected on the ground ofnonstatutory double
patenting as unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,961,784
("'784 patent") and 8,737,466 ("'466 patent"). Non-Final 5; Final Act. 4.
Claims 16 and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over the claims of various
other applications. Non-Final 5---6; Final Act. 4.
THE DOUBLE-PATENTING REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 16 and 17 on the ground of nonstatutory
double patenting over claims 1 and 2 of the '784 and '466 patents because
"the claims in the application are broader than the ones in the patents." Non-
Final 5; Final Act. 4.
Appellant argues that the steps of deriving a first and second scaling
coefficient as recited in claim 16 are not found in the patented claims, and
thus, the Examiner has not shown how the steps would have been obvious
over the patented claims. App. Br. 10. Appellant argues "without these two
features, the term 'the first chrominance quantization parameter' may be
broad enough to encompass the scaling coefficients for both the AC and the
DC coefficients of a transform output." Id.
Because claims 16 and 1 7 recite the two steps not found in the
patented claims (see '784 patent, cols. 10-12; '466 patent, col. 10), we agree
with Appellant that claims 16 and 1 7 are not "broader" than the patented
claims, as the Examiner asserts. Non-Final 5.
In the Answer, the Examiner states that the recited AC and DC
coefficients are inherent. Ans. 5. Even assuming, without deciding, that this
is correct, the claims do not merely include AC and DC coefficients. Rather,
4
Appeal2017-004232
Application 13/325,773
claims 16 and 1 7 recite applying the first parameter to derive two scaling
coefficients. App. Br. 10. The Examiner has not adequately addressed these
limitations. See Non-Final 5; Final Act. 4. Thus, we are constrained by this
record to find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 16 and 17 on the
ground of nonstatutory double patenting.
As for the provisional rejection of claims 16 and 17 on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting, we decline to reach these rejections. See Ex
parte Monda, 95 USPQ2d 1884, 1885 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
( explaining that panels may decline to reach provisional double-patenting
rejections).
THE PREVIOUS APPEAL
The Examiner previously rejected claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Haskell. Office Action, mailed on May 15, 2012.
An appeal was filed.
On appeal, the Board reversed the Examiner's decision. Ex parte
Demos, Appeal No. 2013-002305 (PTAB May 15, 2012), https://e-
foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2014007228-05-
18-2016-1. The Board agreed with Appellant that "the Examiner erred in
finding Haskell discloses 'receiving, at a decoder, a first chroma
quantization parameter bias value for a first chroma channel and a second
chroma quantization parameter bias value for a second chroma channel for a
macroblock,' as recited in claim 16." Id., slip op at 4--5.
5
Appeal2017-004232
Application 13/325,773
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HASKELL AND REININGER
In rejecting the claims under§ 103, the Examiner finds that Haskell
teaches every limitation recited in claim 16 except for a macroblock with
two different chroma-channel-quantization-parameter-bias values. Non-
Final 2--4. As for this feature, the Examiner finds that Reininger teaches a
"separate chroma channel processing technique wherein the first chroma
channel (e.g., Cr) and the second chroma [channel] (e.g., Cb) quantization
parameter bias values ( e.g., update values from 27) differ from each other
for the macroblock." Id. at 3 ( citing Reininger Fig. 2).
Appellant argues that Reininger' s Figure 2 shows an encoder, not a
decoder, and the cited values are new quantization factors, not bias values.
App. Br. 6-9.
The limitation at issue in claim 16 recites, in part, "receiving, at a
decoder, a first chroma quantization parameter bias value for a first chroma
channel and a second chroma quantization parameter bias value for a second
chroma channel for a macroblock." According to the Specification, the
quantization-parameter (QP) value can be biased by subtracting a specified
difference value from the luminance (Y) channel to yield a QP value for the
chroma channels (U and V). Spec. ,r 42.
Reininger's Figure 2 shows a system that compresses-i.e.,
encodes-a video frame. Reininger 6:33-35. In this system, processor 27
adapts the quantization factor. Id. at 6:61-63. For example, after a frame is
compressed, an excess rate fraction, xs-frac, is computed using the total
coded bits and a target bit allocation. See id. at 3:45-55. The current
macroblock is tested to determine whether the total coded data exceeds a
threshold. Id. at 7:65-8: 1. If so, the system addresses an empirical table
6
Appeal2017-004232
Application 13/325,773
using the current quantization factor and the value xs-frac to get "a new
quantization factor for that specific macro block." Id. ( emphasis added).
That is, Reininger teaches an encoder that obtains a new quantization
factor, not a decoder that receives two bias values. App. Br. 6-7. And the
Examiner finds that Haskell's decoder does not receive the recited two
different bias values. Non-Final 2--4. Thus, the Examiner has not shown
that Haskell and Reininger, individually or collectively, teach or suggest this
limitation.
Appellant presents additional arguments, but we need not reach them
because this argument is dispositive. See App. Br. 3-9.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 16 and
dependent claim 17, for similar reasons.
CONCLUSIONS
We decline to reach the provisional double-patenting rejections.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 16 and 17 on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of
U.S. Patent Nos. 7,961,784 and 8,737,466.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 16 and 17 under§ 103.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 16 and 17.
REVERSED
7