Ex Parte Garnier et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 28, 2019

11636258 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/636,258 12/08/2006
147897 7590
Tutunjian & Bitetto, P.C.
401 Broadhollow Road
Suite 402
Melville, NY 11747
07/02/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bruno Garnier
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.
PF050197 7061
EXAMINER
DOBBS, KRISTIN SENSMEIER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2019 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):
docketing@tb-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRUNO GARNIER,
FREDERIC P ASQUIER, and SYLVAIN FABRE
Appeal2017-008576
Application 11/636,258
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, AARON W. MOORE, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-008576
Application 11/636,258
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 4, 5, and 8, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The application "relates to a device and a method for coding video
data." (Abstract.) Claims 1 and 5, reproduced below, exemplify the subject
matter on appeal:
1. A video data coding device comprising an encoder configured
to encode each picture in slices of pictures according to a break-
down in compliance with H264 video coding standard, each slice
being coded independently of the other slices, wherein the video
data coding device comprises:
an insertion module comprising a processor configured to in-
sert into the data stream, for a first group of pictures to be coded,
a first SEI message indicating a breakdown of a picture of said
group of pictures to be coded into a number of slices,
and further configured to insert into the data stream, for a sub-
sequent group of pictures to be coded, a second SEI message only
when said breakdown is different between one picture of said
subsequent group of pictures to be coded and a picture of the first
group of pictures.
5. A video data decoding system, the video data having been
encoded in slices according to a breakdown in compliance with
H264 video coding standard, each of the slices being coded in-
dependently of the other slices, wherein the video data decoding
system comprises:
1 Appellants identify Thompson Licensing as the real party in interest. (See
App. Br. 3.)
2
Appeal2017-008576
Application 11/636,258
an analysis module comprising a processor configured to an-
alyze the video data to recognize and extract into a data stream a
plurality of SEI messages, each associated with a picture in a
group of pictures, indicating the structure relating to the break-
down of the pictures into slices and each indicating a different
breakdown as compared to a previous SEI message,
a plurality of decoders configured to decode the video data
slice by slice, and
a reconstruction buffer configured to reconstruct the various
video data slices into a picture after they have been decoded,
based on one of the plurality of SEI messages, in order to recon-
struct the decoded video data, wherein a previous SEI message
is used if there is no SEI message directly associated with the
picture,
wherein said analysis module is further configured to orient,
for said group of pictures, the various slices toward the plurality
of decoding devices according to the availability of the decoding
devices, the number of decoding devices, and the analyzed
breakdown of the pictures into slices, so that a plurality of slices
is decoded simultaneously for said group of pictures.
THE REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Rasmussen
Ngai
Visharam et al.
Marpe et al.
us 5,995,146
US 2001/0021227 Al
US 2004/0006575 Al
US 2005/0074176 Al
3
Nov. 30, 1999
Sept. 13, 2001
Jan. 8,2004
Apr. 7, 2005
Appeal2017-008576
Application 11/636,258
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rasmussen, Marpe, and Visharam. (See Final Act. 2-8.)
2. Claims 5 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rasmussen, Ngai, and Visharam. (See Final Act. 8-17.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 4
Claim 1 recites an encoder with "an insertion module comprising a
processor configured to insert into the data stream, for a first group of
pictures to be coded, a first SEI message indicating a breakdown of a picture
of said group of pictures to be coded into a number of slices" that is "further
configured to insert into the data stream, for a subsequent group of pictures
to be coded, a second SEI message only when said breakdown is different
between one picture of said subsequent group of pictures to be coded and a
picture of the first group of pictures." Claim 4 recites a coding method that
"insert[ s] into [a] data stream, for a first group of pictures to be coded, a first
SEI message indicating a breakdown of a picture of said group of pictures to
be coded into a number of slices" and "insert[ s] into the data stream, for a
subsequent group of pictures to be coded, a second SEI message only when
said breakdown is different between one picture of said subsequent group of
pictures to be coded and a picture of the first group of pictures."
In the Final Action, the Examiner relied primarily on Rasmussen but
found it does not include an SEI message, "nor does it teach ... configured
to insert into the data stream, for a subsequent group of pictures to be coded,
a second SEI message only when said breakdown is different between one
4
Appeal2017-008576
Application 11/636,258
picture of said subsequent group of pictures to be coded and a picture of the
first group of pictures." (Final Act. 3, emphasis omitted.) The Examiner
further found that "Visharam teaches [an] SEI message" and concluded that,
in view of Marpe, "it would be obvious ... that the type of splitting and
number of slices could be different from one picture to another." (Id. at 4--5,
emphasis omitted.)
Appellants argue "[t]he Examiner asserts that Marpe describes a
breakdown changing from picture to picture, but even assuming arguendo
that the Examiner were correct on this point, this does nothing to indicate
that pictures might be transmitted without a breakdown indication at all."
(App. Br. 13.) Appellants further argue that "there is no indication in the
entire reference that the slice breakdown might change between pictures or
groups of pictures" and "[t]he Examiner makes assertions in rejecting the
claims that are wholly without support in the art." (Id.)
The Examiner responds that Marpe "teaches in Fig. 14 and paragraphs
[0124]-[0125] that when FMO is not in use it can be viewed as the simple
special case of FMO in which the whole picture consists of a single slice
group (i.e., no indication of the breakdown of slices as there is known to
only be a single slice group)." (Ans. 17.) The Examiner states that "in
addition, paragraph [0126] of Marpe teaches that there are different ways to
split a picture into slices (i.e., interleaved slices, one or more 'foreground'
slice groups and a 'leftover' slice group, etc.) in addition to changing the
number of slices in general from one picture to another (i.e., the last picture
in a first group of pictures can have a different number of slices than the first
picture in a second group of pictures; for example, a 'foreground' slice
group and a 'leftover' slice group)." (Id. at 17-18.) The Examiner adds that
5
Appeal2017-008576
Application 11/636,258
"Rasmussen is cited as teaching the use of slice information (i.e.,
'messages')" and "SEI messages are taught by Visharam ... which includes
an extensive discussion of the use of SEI messages." (Id. at 18.)
The cited art shows that it was known to use different slicing schemes
and SEI messages. We agree with Appellants, however, that the Examiner
has not shown how the references teach or suggest a system configured to
insert a second SEI message only when the breakdown is different between
one picture of the subsequent group of pictures and a picture of the first
group of pictures, as claimed. We thus do not sustain the Section 103
rejection of claim 1 or, for similar reasons, the same rejection of claim 4.
Claims 5 and 8
Claim 5 recites a decoder with a reconstruction buffer "configured to
reconstruct the various video data slices into a picture after they have been
decoded, based on one of the plurality of SEI messages, in order to
reconstruct the decoded video data, wherein a previous SEI message is used
if there is no SEI message directly associated with the picture." Claim 8
recites "reconstructing the video data slices into a picture after they have
been decoded, based on one of the plurality of SEI messages, in order to
reconstruct the decoded video data, wherein a previous SEI message is used
if there is no SEI message directly associated with the picture."
In the Final Action, the Examiner relied primarily on Rasmussen but
found it does not teach SEI messages, "nor does it teach a reconstruction
buffer configured to reconstruct the various video data slices into a picture
after they have been decoded, based on one of the plurality of SEI
messages," where "a previous SEI message is used if there is no SEI
message directly associated with the picture." (Final Act. 10-11, emphasis
6
Appeal2017-008576
Application 11/636,258
omitted.) The Examiner found, however, that Ngai teaches a "reconstruction
buffer configured to reconstruct the various video data slices into a picture
after they have been decoded, based on one of the plurality of ... messages,
in order to reconstruct the decoded video data, wherein a previous ...
message is used if there is no ... message directly associated with the
picture." (Id. at 11, citing Ngai, Fig. 1, ,r,r 23-24 (emphasis omitted).) The
Examiner concluded that "[i]t would have been obvious for the stream slicer
18 to continue to allocate slices to slices decoders in a similar manner if
there was no indication that such allocation should change (i.e., no different
'SEI message')." (Id. at 19.)
Appellants argue "[t]he Examiner provides no support ...
whatsoever" for the assertion that it would have been obvious to use a
previous SEI message "and, furthermore, provides no motivation for making
such a change to the teachings of Rasmussen." (App. Br. 17.) They further
argue that "[ t ]he Examiner states no rationale at all for why a person having
ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have a previous SEI message
be used if no new SEI message has been received for the picture." (Id.)
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner's bare statement that "[i]t
would have been obvious ... to continue to allocate slices to slices decoders
in a similar manner if there was no indication that such allocation should
change (i.e., no different 'SEI message')" lacks the articulated reasoning
with a rational underpinning required to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). We thus
do not sustain the Section 103 rejection of claim 8 or, for similar reasons, the
same rejection of claim 8. Because this issue is dispositive, we do not reach
Appellants' other argument concerning these claims.
7
Appeal2017-008576
Application 11/636,258
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 4, 5, and 8 are reversed.
REVERSED
8