Ex Parte DemosDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 18, 201612913045 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121913,045 10/27/2010 26171 7590 05/20/2016 FISH & RICHARDSON P,C (DC) P.O. 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. 07314-0013003 3144 EXAMINER LEE, YYOUNG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2485 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/20/2016 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): P ATDOCTC@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GARY A. DEMOS 1 Appeal2014-007228 Application 12/913,045 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON V. MORGAN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 19-24 and 3 6. Claims 1-18 and 25-3 5 are canceled. App. Br. 1. This appeal is related to Appeals Number 2013-000301 (App. No. 13/325,695; decided May 1, 2015) and 2013-002305 (App. No. 13/325,773; decided June 16, 2015). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 Appellant identifies Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-007228 Application 12/913,045 Invention Appellant discloses methods related to the use of quantization parameters for one or more chroma channels. Abstract. Exemplary Claim Claim 19~ reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is representative: 19. A computer-implemented method for a decoder, the computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, at the decoder, at least a luminance QP (quantization parameter) value and a first chroma QP bias value for a bi-directionally interpolated macroblock, wherein the first chroma QP bias value was determined at an encoder and signaled from the encoder to the decoder, wherein the decoder comprises a luminance channel, a first chroma channel and a second chroma channel, and wherein the encoder comprises a chroma channel having one-half of a horizontal resolution of the luminance channel of the decoder; utilizing, with the decoder, the luminance QP value and the first chroma QP bias value to determine a first chroma QP value for the bi-directionally interpolated macroblock by adding the first chroma QP bias value to the luminance QP value; and decompressing an image region of a video image using the luminance QP value and the determined first chroma QP value, wherein the determined first chroma QP value is less than a predetermined maximum value and greater than a predetermined minimum value, and wherein the determined first chroma QP value 1s determined for the first chroma channel. 2 Appeal2014-007228 Application 12/913,045 Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 19-24 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haskell (US 2006/0002467 Al; Jan. 5, 2006), Ribas-Corbera (US 6,535,251 Bl; Mar. 18, 2003), and Appellant's Admitted Prior Art ("AAP A"). Final Act. 2--4. ISSUE2 Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Haskell, Ribas- Corbera, and AAPA teaches or suggests "receiving, at the decoder, at least a luminance QP (quantization parameter) value and a first chroma QP bias value for a bi-directionally interpolated macroblock," as recited in claim 19? ANALYSIS In the Board's previous decision with respect to related Appeal Number 2013-000301, the panel reversed the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 1 because the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Haskell and Naimpally (US 5,294,974; iviar. 15, 1994) teaches or suggests "receiving, at the decoder, at least a luminance QP (quantization parameter) value and a first chroma QP bias value." Ex parte Demos (Demos 2013- 000301), Appeal No. 2013-000301, slip op. at 3--4, http://e-foia.uspto.gov/ Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2013000301-04-29-2015-l (PTAB May 1, 2015). In particular: [The panel] agree[d] with Appellant that the cited portions of Haskell teach a "single quantization parameter is used to compute both the luminance scaling factor and the chroma 2 We do not address any other issues raised by Appellant because this issue is dispositive. 3 Appeal2014-007228 Application 12/913,045 scaling factor." . . . This single quantization parameter is used to compute luminance and chroma quantization parameter values at the decoder, but does not disclose or suggest receiving a separate_first chroma QP bias value .... Haskell i-fi-1 22-32. Moreover, [the panel] disagree[d] with the Examiner's finding that Haskell's CHROMA Scaler 400 teaches receiving, at the decoder, the chroma QP bias value, as recited in claim 1 .... Rather, Haskell's CHROMA Scaler is not received .. Haskell, Figs. 2-3. [The panel] also disagree[d] with the Examiner's finding that Haskell's "update signals" for the quantization parameter of Haskell teach or suggest the claimed chroma QP bias value .... Instead, the update signal represents a change in a value of Haskell's single quantization parameter (Qp). See Haskell, i1 42. Demos 2013-000301, slip op. at 3. In the Board's previous decision with respect to related Appeal Number 2013-002305, in which the Examiner's rejection was reversed, the panel adopted this same reasoning. Ex parte Demos, Appeal No. 2013- 002305, slip op. at 4, https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system= BPAI&f1Nm=fd2013002305-06-12-2015-1 (PTAB June 16, 2015). Here, Appellant and the Examiner make similar arguments and findings with respect to the disputed recitation. See Final Act. 2; App. Br. 3-5; Ans. 2. Based on the record before us, we adopt the reasoning of the previous panels with respect to the disputed recitation. The Examiner does not rely on Ribas-Corbera or AAP A to cure the noted deficiency. Final Act. 3; Ans. 2--4. Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner's findings do not show the combination of Haskell, Ribas-Corbera, and AAP A teaches or suggests "receiving, at the decoder, at least a luminance QP (quantization parameter) value and a first chroma QP bias value for a bi- directionally interpolated macroblock," as recited in claim 19. 4 Appeal2014-007228 Application 12/913,045 Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 19, and claims 20-24, which depend therefrom. We also do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 36, which contains the same recitation and is similarly rejected. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-24 and 36. We have decided the case based on the record before us. However, in the event of further prosecution, we recommend the Examiner ascertain whether references cited in information disclosure statements filed in related applications after briefing for this appeal finished (e.g., Gillard (GB 2 266 635; Nov. 15, 1995) or Reininger (US 5,426,463; June 20, 1995)) cure the noted deficiency of Haskell, Ribas-Corbera, and AAPA. See App. No. 13/325,695, Final Act. 2 (Feb. 24, 2016); App. No. 13/325,695, Non-Final Act. 5 (Oct. 26, 2015); App. No. 13/325,773, Final Act. 2 (Mar. 10, 2016). \Ve also recommend the Examiner ascertain whether any double patenting issues involving related applications exist. See App. No. 13/325,773, Final Act. 4 (Mar. 10, 2016). REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation