Ex Parte EckartDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 19, 201611681492 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation