Ex Parte Haskell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

13334843 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/334,843 12/22/2011 Barin Geoffry Haskell APLE.P0029C15 7343
62224 7590
ADELI LLP
11859 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 408
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
EXAMINER
AN, SHAWN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
mail@ adelillp.com
PatentOffice @ adelillp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BARIN GEOFFRY HASKELL, DAVID WILLIAM SINGER,
ADRIANA DUMITRAS, and ATUL PURI
Appeal 2016-004475
Application 13/334,8431
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 21—27 and 32-41, which constitute all claims
pending in the application. Claims 1—20 and 28—31 have been canceled. We
have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-004475
Application 13/334,843
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to digital video encoding and decoding,
and specifically, “specifying variable accuracy inter-picture timing.” Spec.
2. Claims 21 and 33 are independent. Claim 21 is representative of the
invention and the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows (with the
disputed limitations in italics):
21. A method for decoding a plurality of video pictures of a
video sequence, the method comprising:
at a decoder, receiving a bitstream comprising an encoded
first video picture and an encoded second video picture, wherein
the encoded first video picture comprises at least one
bidirectional predicted macroblock and the encoded second
video picture comprises no bidirectional predicted macroblocks
and at least one unidirectional predicted macroblock that
references the encoded first video picture; and
decoding the second video picture by using the first video
picture as a reference.
App. Br. 14 (Claims App.).
Claims 21—27 and 32-41 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as based on a disclosure which is not
enabling. Final Act. 4.2
2 Appellants’ briefs also argue against a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
which Appellants state the Examiner has “temporarily held in abeyance.”
App. Br. 12; see also Ans. 13. The Final Action, however, does not include
this rejection, Final Act. 4, and therefore it is not before us. Appellants’
argument regarding the written description requirement, App. Br. 8—11,
likewise is moot, for the same reason.
2
Appeal 2016-004475
Application 13/334,843
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the arguments
raised in the Briefs. On the record before us, we cannot sustain the
Examiner’s rejection.
The Examiner finds Appellants’ Specification not enabling of the
claim element “decoding the second video picture [P-frame] by using the
first video picture [B-frame] as a reference,” as recited in independent
claims 21 and 33. Final Act. 2—3. Appellants argue this finding constitutes
error, because (i) video coding is a “predictable art,” App. Br. 7, (ii) the
Specification relies on “the H.264 standard” known in the art, App. Br. 8,
Reply Br. 7, and (iii) the Specification does describe a frame transmission
sequence in which a B-frame precedes a P-frame, and describes to one of
ordinary skill how the frames may be utilized to construct one another, App.
Br. 8, Reply Br. 8—9.3
The Examiner acknowledges Appellants’ Specification “does [enable]
decoding the first video picture (B) by using the second video picture (I
and/or P) as a reference,” which is the inverse of the disputed limitation.
Ans. 10 (citing Spec. 1 33 (Spec. 12 on the record before us)). As the
Specification states:
3 The Specification describes that in video compression, there are three types
of compressed picture frames: Intra-frames (“I-frames”), which
independently encode with no reference to other frames; Unidirectional
Predicted Frames (“P-frames”), which define a video frame with reference to
a single previously displayed video frame; and Bi-Directional Predicted
Frames (“B-frames”), which define a video frame with reference to both a
video frame displayed before the current frame and video frame displayed
after the current frame. Spec. 4,11. Frames may be transmitted out of
display-order for purposes of efficiency, and then re-ordered upon decoding,
using the foregoing properties. Id.
3
Appeal 2016-004475
Application 13/334,843
[T]he system transmits B-frame video picture B2 after video
picture P5 even though video picture B2 will be displayed before
video picture P5. The reason for this is that when it comes time
to decode B2, the decoder will have already received and stored
the information in video pictures T and P5 necessary to decode
video picture B2. Similarly, video pictures Ii and P5 are ready to
be used to decode subsequent video picture B3 and video picture
B4. The receiver/decoder reorders the video picture sequence for
proper display.
Spec. 12. The Examiner finds this disclosure “basically contradicts”
the disputed limitation. Ans. 10. We disagree.
As Appellants assert, the foregoing disclosure cited by the
Examiner is merely an example of a broader description in which either
a B-frame or a P-ffame may be the “first picture” serving as a reference
for the other. App. Br. 8. Figure 2 of the Specification is reproduced
below.
Figure 2 is a diagram illustrating a series of 14 video picture frames in
display order 1—14. Spec. 11. Each frame is denoted an I-frame, P-
frame, or B-frame. Arrows indicate the frames’ dependence upon one
other to construct the video picture after transmission. Frame P5, for
4
Appeal 2016-004475
Application 13/334,843
example, depends on information in frame Ii, and therefore P5 cannot
be decoded until II is received (therefore, Ii should be transmitted
before P5). Id. at 11—12. Similarly, frame B4 (a Bi-Directional
Predicted Frame) depends on frame Ii and P5, and therefore should be
transmitted after those frames even though it will be displayed prior to
P5. Id.
The frames of Figure 2, therefore, may be transmitted in the order
displayed in Figure 3, reproduced below.
Figure 3 is a diagram illustrating the reordering of frames for efficient
decoding purposes. Spec. 11—12. In the decoding, “first” encoded
picture B4 is decoded using “second” picture P5 as a reference (which
is, as the Examiner finds, the inverse of the disputed claim limitation).
Id. This is, however, not the only example reflected in Figures 2 and 3.
The figures illustrate, and the Specification describes, P-frames (for
example, P10) may use B-frames as a reference: “a P or a B picture may
use any previously transmitted picture for its motion vector prediction.'1'’
App. Br. 8 (citing Spec. 15) (emphasis added). If, as the Examiner
acknowledges, Ans. 10, the foregoing disclosures are sufficient to
enable decoding a B-frame picture using a P-frame picture as reference,
5
Appeal 2016-004475
Application 13/334,843
then one of ordinary skill would also understand them to enable
decoding a P-ffame picture using a B-frame picture as reference. App.
Br. 8; Reply Br. 9. Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants’
argument. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 21—27 and 32-41 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
as based on a disclosure which is not enabling.4
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of claims 21—27 and 32-41.
REVERSED
4 In the event of further prosecution, including any review for allowance
over the previously cited prior art, we leave to the Examiner to consider the
effect, if any, of Appellants’ reliance on the H.264 “standard.” App. Br. 8.
While the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b),
no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02.
6