Ex Parte Eckart

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 19, 2016

11681492 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111681,492 0310212007
29153 7590 01/21/2016
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.
C/O Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
311 S. WACKER DRIVE
Suite 4300
CHICAGO, IL 60606
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stefan Eckart
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.
00100.66.0550 7305
EXAMINER
LI, TRACYY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
0112112016 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):
inteas@faegrebd.com
michelle.davis@faegrebd.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte STEFAN ECKART
Appeal2014-002311
Application 11/681,492
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, HUNG H. BUI, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2014-002311
Application 11/681,492
STATE~v1ENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1 and 14--17, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. Claims 2-13 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction over the rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to rate control for a constant-bit-rate, finite-
buffer-size video encoder. Spec., Title. Claims 1 and 14, reproduced below,
are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for rate control for a constant-bit-rate
finite-buffer-size video encoder comprising:
calculating a power value for a first frame based on pixel
values of only the first frame;
adjusting a number of bits in a second frame based on the
power value for the first frame;
wherein the power value is calculated by:
calculating an average value of pixel values in
each of a plurality of pixel blocks within the first frame;
for each of the plurality of pixel blocks, calculating
a sum of absolute differences between the pixel values in the
respective pixel block and the average value; and
adding each sum of the absolute differences for
each of the plurality of pixel blocks within the first frame to
obtain a power value for the first frame.
14. A method for rate control for a constant-bit-rate
finite-buffer-size video encoder comprising:
2
Appeal 2014-002311
Application 11/681,492
calculating a group-of-pictures-level prediction for a
number of bits encoded for a group of pictures;
calculating a picture-level prediction for a number of bits
encoded for a picture;
calculating a pixel-block-level prediction for a number of
bits encoded for a pixel block; and
using the group-of-pictures-level prediction, the picture-
level prediction, and the pixel-block-level prediction to adjust a
quantizer scale factor to provide the rate control for the video
encoder.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Uz
Mihara
us 5,854,658
US 6,226,326 B 1
REJECTIONS
Dec. 29, 1998
May 1, 2001
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Uz and Mihara. Final Act. 3-5.
Claims 14--16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Uz. Final Act. 5-7.
ANALYSIS
The 35 US.C. § 102(b) Rejection
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 14--16 under 35 U.S.C.
3
Appeal 2014-002311
Application 11/681,492
§ l 02(b) as being anticipated by Uz. \Ve agree with Appellant's conclusions
as to this rejection of these claims.
The Examiner finds U z describes a compression algorithm used to
generate a sequence of frames for a group wherein each picture is predictive
of previous and/or subsequent pictures in the group. Ans. 8. The Examiner
further finds one of ordinary skill in the art would understand a prediction
calculated based on error macro blocks of a frame would include "the unit of
a frame, frame level prediction or picture level prediction." Id. Appellant
contends Uz fails to disclose "any group of picture level predictions in
combination with a picture level prediction and a pixel block level
prediction," as required by claim 14. 1 App. Br. 19--20.
Addressing the portion ofUz relied upon by the Examiner, Appellant
argues "the specific teaching of col. 3, ln. 20 showing the frame group
IPBBPBBIBBPBB is merely, as admitted by the Examiner, a specific
sequence of frames for a group. This is not the same as the claimed
calculation of a number of bits encoded for a group of pictures." Reply Br.
2.
However, the portions ofUz cited by the Examiner do not disclose the
disputed calculation of a group-of-pictures-level prediction for a number of
bits encoded for a picture, nor has the Examiner persuasively explained why
the disputed limitation necessarily flows from what is described.
Recognizing such a deficiency in Uz, the Examiner finds one of ordinary
skill in the art would understand the functionality described by Uz would
1 We note Appellant raises additional contentions of error but we do not
reach them as our resolution of this contention is dispositive of the appealed
rejection of independent claim 14 and dependent claims 15 and 16 under 3 5
U.S.C. § 102(b) and dependent claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
4
Appeal 2014-002311
Application 11/681,492
result in the disputed limitation. Ans. 8-9. However, because the
Examiner's finding is not self-apparent from the cited portions of Uz and we
are otherwise unable to identify sufficient evidence supporting the
Examiner's finding, we find persuasive Appellant's argument that Uz fails to
disclose the disputed limitation.
For the reasons supra, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of
claim 14 and its dependent claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based
on Uz. For similar reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent
claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Uz and
Mihara, as the Examiner's application of the Mihara reference fails to cure
the deficiency in the base rejection addressed supra.
The 35 US.C. § 103(a) Rejection
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 in light of
Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with
Appellant's conclusions. Instead, in connection with claim 1, we adopt as
our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-5) and (2) the reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's
Appeal Brief (Ans. 5-7) and concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellant contends Uz's total activity of the particular frame (Tai) "is
used to detect a scene change and the same total activity of a particular
frame is used to set the initial quantization scale factor for that particular
frame ... not []to adjust the number of bits in a second frame." App. Br.
15. Therefore, Appellant argues Uz fails to teach adjusting a number of bits
5
Appeal 2014-002311
Application 11/681,492
in a second frame based on the power value for the first frame as required by
claim 1. App. Br. 13.
The Examiner responds that Uz's "Tai is consistent with the definition
of power value recited in claim 1 regardless [of whether] Tai is used to detect
scene change or not, because the 'not used to detect scene change' for the
power value is unclaimed." Ans. 5-6. The Examiner further finds Uz's
equation CEi=CEi-1+Bui-BBi, wherein CEi is the cumulative coding budget
deviation for frame i, CEi-1 is the cumulative coding budget deviation for the
previous frame i-1, BUi is the actual number of bits used to code frame i,
and BBi is the bit budget for frame i, teaches "the budgeted number of bits
of the second frame i+ 1 is modified or adjusted according to the average of
the total activity of the first frame i." Ans. 6. Accordingly, the Examiner
finds Uz teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claim 1. Final Act.
4.
We agree with the Examiner. Appellant's argument that "the Uz
reference actually appears to teach a different approach wherein the activity
TAi also referenced to as 'total activity of the particular frame' is actually
used ... to detect a scene change" (App. Br. 14 (citations omitted)) does not
address the Examiner's finding that TAi is equivalent to and teaches the
claimed power value, regardless of how the power value otherwise is used
by Uz. Ans. 5---6. As explained by the Examiner, the label given to and use
ascribed to Uz's Tai does not negate the teaching attributed by the Examiner
to the parameter, i.e., calculating a pixel error value of a frame in a scene
during the motion prediction processing of an encoder. Id. Furthermore,
Appellant does not address the Examiner's finding in connection with Uz's
equation at col. 6, 11. 41--44 ofUz as discussed above. In the absence of
6
Appeal 2014-002311
Application 11/681,492
persuasive rebuttal, we agree with the Examiner that Uz's equation teaches
or suggests using TAi of a first frame i to adjust the number of bits of the
second fame i+ 1. Ans. 6. Accordingly, we further agree with the Examiner
that Uz teaches or suggests the disputed limitations required by the steps of
calculating a power value for a first frame, based on pixel values of only the
first frame, and adjusting a number of bits in a second frame, based on the
power value for the first frame.
Appellant next contends Mihara fails to teach calculating a frame
power value as required by claim 1. App. Br. 16-18. According to
Appellant, Mihara determines a coding difficulty value using the average
macroblock information from an I-frame to determine code difficulty with
respect to a different frame, not using the sum of absolute differences
between pixel values in a respective pixel block within the frame and the
average value of a pixel block within the same frame as required by claim 1.
Id. at 18. In response, the Examiner explains that Mihara's intra-AC
calculation is used to determine an intra-AC value, i.e. an intra-frame
prediction, based on only the current I-frame. Ans. 7.
We agree with the Examiner. As found by the Examiner, Mihara's
intra-AC calculation expressed as:
~ ((L f cirr))
Jntra_AC = L f curr(x, y) - N
teaches or suggests an intra-frame prediction wherein only one frame is
involved. Id. Therefore, we disagree with Appellant's contention that
"Mihara actually teaches a different approach wherein macroblocks from
two different frames are being employed to determine the coding difficulty"
7
Appeal 2014-002311
Application 11/681,492
(App. Br. 16) and agree with the Examiner that ~v1ihara teaches or suggests
the calculation as claimed.
For the reasons supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error and
sustain the rejection of independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
U z and Mihara.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 14--17 is reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claim 1 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
kme
8