Ex Parte Fang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 11, 2016

12766384 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
121766,384
93823 7590
BGL/Huawei
P.O. Box 10395
Chicago, IL 60610
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
04/23/2010 Ping Fang
07111/2016
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.
13674-156 1326
EXAMINER
SOSANYA, OBAFEMI OLUDAYO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
07/11/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PING F ANG1
Appeal2014-009210
Application 12/766,384
Technology Center 2400
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision2 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 16-21, which are all the pending claims. 3
Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Huawei Technologies
Co., Ltd. Br. 2.
2 Our decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed November 18, 2013
("Final Act."); Appellant's Appeal Brief filed April 10, 2014 ("Br."); the
Examiner's Answer mailed June 20, 2014 ("Ans."); and the Specification
filed April 23, 2010 ("Spec.").
3 Claims 3-5 and 8-15 are cancelled. Br. 14--15.
Appeal2014-009210
Application 12/766,384
THE CLAHvIED INVENTION
According to the Specification, "[ t ]he present invention relates to
video processing technologies, and in particular, to a video coding method, a
video decoding method, a video coder, and a video decoder." Spec. i-f 2.
Independent claims 1 and 7 are directed to devices and independent claim 18
is directed to a coded product. Br. 13-16 (Claims App'x). Claim 1 recites:
In a three-dimension (3D) video codec device, a method
of providing 3D video support for various devices across a
dynamic network, in order to improve coding and transmitting
efficiency while also reduce coding complexity, the method
comprising the 3D video codec device performing:
receiving a first view information from a first camera that
represents a first perspective of a 3D video scene or image;
receiving a second view information from a second
camera that represents a second perspective of the same 3D video
scene or image;
selecting the first view information as a reference view;
obtaining base-layer codes by performing base-layer
coding for the reference view;
obtaining decoded base-layer codes by performing
decoding by the 3D video codec device, on the base-layer codes;
analyzing request information on one or both of: a display
device and network condition in order to determine on one or
both of: a quality level suitable for the display device and the
network condition;
based upon the analysis, extracting prediction information
for the second view information from the decoded base-layer
codes of: the first view information and the second view
information according to the determined quality level;
obtaining enhancement-layer codes by performing
enhancement-layer coding for the prediction information; and
obtaining coded information by multiplexing the base-
layer codes and the enhancement-layer codes.
Br. 13-14.
2
Appeal2014-009210
Application 12/766,384
REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 16-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Haskell et al. (US 5,619,256; issued Apr. 8,
1997) ("Haskell") and Tillman et al. (US 6,496,980 B 1; issued Dec. 17,
2002) ("Tillman"). Final Act. 4.
GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Appellant argues all the claims as a single group and relies on the
arguments presented as to claim 1 for all the pending claims. Br. 10-11. All
the pending claims are subject to the same ground of rejection. Final Act. 1,
4. Accordingly, we decide this appeal as to all claims based on our
consideration of representative claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejection of claim 1 in light of Appellant's
arguments presented in the Appeal Brief. We are not persuaded that
Appellant identifies reversible error. We agree with and adopt the
Examiner's findings, reasoning, and conclusions as set forth in the Final
Office Action (Final Act. 2-13) and the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-14).
We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellant argues the cited combination of references fails to teach or
suggest, "analyzing request information on one or both of: a display device
and network condition in order to determine on one or both of: a quality
level suitable for the display device and the network condition," as recited in
claim 1. Br. 7-9. The Examiner relies on column 7, line 45, through
3
Appeal2014-009210
Application 12/766,384
column 8, line 4, of Tillman as teaching the disputed limitation. Ans. 12-13.
The cited portion of Tillman includes the following passage:
In one embodiment, initialization, buffering and
synchronization (when replay is requested) of a replay on
demand capability may be accomplished as follows. When the
client system "connects" to the server system and requests a
video content be streamed, the server system may send
information, called a catalog, to the client system informing the
client about global properties of the stream. The catalog may
comprise information items such as stream information
(source, title, author, copyright, etc.), format (video size, coding
algorithm, etc.) and other video attributes (sequence length,
optimal display size, optimal post-processing options, etc.).
Tillman 7: 51---62 (emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner that
Tillman teaches the disputed "analyzing request information" limitation.
Appellant argues the cited combination of references fails to teach or
suggest, "based upon the analysis, extracting prediction information for the
second view information from the decoded base-layer codes of: the first
view information and the second view information according to the
determined quality level," as recited in claim 1. Br. 9-10. The Examiner
provides detailed findings, quotations, and citations showing Tillman
teaches all elements of this disputed limitation. Final Act. 6---7; Ans. 13-14.
Appellant does not squarely address - let alone persuasively rebut - the
Examiner's well-supported findings regarding the teachings of Tillman. In
the argument labelled "(B)" in the Appeal Brief, Appellant relies on the
arguments relating to the "analyzing request information" limitation and a
bare statement which merely points out what the disputed limitation of claim
1 recites. Br. 9-10. We do not find this argument persuasive for the reasons
stated above and because, "[a] statement which merely points out what a
4
Appeal2014-009210
Application 12/766,384
claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of
the claim." 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
In the argument labelled "(C)" in the Appeal Brief, Appellant
contends, based on conclusory attorney argument with no evidentiary
support, the combination of Haskell and Tillman would be inoperable. Br.
10. We find this argument non-persuasive because it is conclusory and
unsupported, and because Appellant fails to address what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that
the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." (citations
omitted)). And, as noted previously, Appellant fails to rebut the findings of
the Examiner that Tillman teaches the disputed limitation.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of the other
pending claims, which were not separately argued.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 16-21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
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
5