Ex Parte He et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 4, 2018

13533337 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/533,337 06/26/2012
14551 7590
Rowand LLP (BlackBerry)
Suite 900, 357 Bay St.
Toronto, ON MSH 2T7
CANADA
09/06/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dake He
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.
101-0143USP1 9195
EXAMINER
MUNG,ONS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/06/2018 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):
mailbox@rowandlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAKE HE, JING WANG, and
GAELLE CHRISTINE MARTIN COCHER
Appeal2017-010844
Application 13/533,337 1
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 31-55, which are the only claims pending. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to video coding that apply transform skipping to
some blocks of residuals, and to a coding and decoding process to improve
performance when transform skipping is enabled. Abstract, Spec. ,r,r 2, 7,
1 The real party in interest is identified as BlackBerry Limited. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-010844
Application 13/533,337
4 7, 51, Figs. 3, 5. Claim 31, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal ( emphasis added):
3 1. A method of decoding a bitstream of encoded video in a
video decoder to reconstruct residuals, the method comprising:
determining that transform skipping is enabled for a
block of residuals, meaning that no transform was applied
during encoding and no inverse transform will be applied
during decoding;
reconstructing, based on a scan order, a block of
quantized residuals by entropy decoding a first part of the
bitstream; and
based on the determination that transform skipping is
enabled, reconstructing the block of residuals by one of
rotating the block of quantized residuals and dequantizing the
resulting rotated block or dequantizing the block of quantized
residuals and rotating the resulting dequantized block.
Br. 15 (Claims App'x).
THE REJECTIONS 2
Claims 31, 33-39, 41--46, and 48-55 are rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mrak et al. ("Transform skip
mode," 7th JCT-VC meeting; 98. MPEG meeting; 21-30 Nov. 2011;
Geneva; (Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding of ISO/IEC
JTC1/SC29/WG11 and ITU-T SG.16; no. JCTVC-G575, November 8,
2 Claims 38, 45, and 53 are subject to objection because "[i]t is unclear what
the 'second block' is referred to." Final Act. 4. Appellants argue the
"second" block of these dependent claims clarifies "that the operations
recited in claims 38, 45 and 53 are applied to a different block than the
operations recited in the independent claim from which they respectfully
depend." Br. 13. We are persuaded by Appellants' argument and,
additionally, we note this objection is not addressed by the Examiner in the
Answer.
2
Appeal2017-010844
Application 13/533,337
2011) ("Mrak") in view of Robert et al. ("Improving Intra mode coding in
H.264/ A VC through block oriented transforms," Multimedia Signal
Processing, 2006 IEEE 8th Workshop, 3---6 Oct. 2006) ("Robert"). Final
Act. 5-12.
Claims 32, 40, and 47 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Mrak, Robert, and Zeng et al. (US 6,505,299 B 1;
iss. January 7, 2003) ("Zeng"). Final Act. 12-13.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding the combination of
Mrak and Robert teaches the below limitation of claim 31 ( and independent
claims 31, 39, 46, 54, and 55) and argue one of ordinary skill in the art
would not be motivated to combine these references:
based on the determination that transform skipping is
enabled, reconstructing the block of residuals by one of
rotating the block of quantized residuals and dequantizing the
resulting rotated block or dequantizing the block of quantized
residuals and rotating the resulting dequantized block.
Br. 8-13.
Appellants argue the invention is directed to video coding in which no
transform has been applied to a block of residual data at the encoder,
commonly referred to as "transform skipping." Br. 4 (citing Spec. ,r 42). To
deal with the results of skipping, Appellants describe a process in which, if
the transform is skipped for a block, the usual scan order is used in coding
but a rotation of the block is applied. Id. (citing Spec. ,r 47 3).
3 Spec. ,r 47 does not recite "rotation," it appears Appellants are referring to
i1 51 ).
3
Appeal2017-010844
Application 13/533,337
According to Appellants:
The term "rotation" (as an example of a 'permutation') is defined
in paragraph [0051]: " ... another example permutation is rotation,
where the block's contents are rotated by 90 degrees, 180 degrees
or 270 degrees". As noted in paragraph [0047] of the present
application, "[ a ]dvantageously, this approach avoids making any
changes to the entropy coding process and uses the same scan
pattern and coding procedure that would otherwise be used for
encoding [ and decoding] quantized transform domain
coefficients". The rotation may be applied before or after
quantization/dequantization. Paras. [0059] & [0067]. An
example of a 180° rotation of a 4x4 block is illustrated in Figure
5.
Id. at 4.
Appellants argue "the broadest reasonable interpretation of 'rotating'
as that term is used in claim 3 1 and the other independent claims is
maintaining the internal relationship of the block's contents, but rotating the
orientation of the block by 90, 180, or 270 degrees." Id. at 9. Appellants
illustrate an example of rotating a block by 90 degrees counterclockwise, set
forth below (Id. at 8):
Illustration of rotating a block by 90 degrees
4
Appeal2017-010844
Application 13/533,337
Appellants argue the specification explicitly defines "rotation" as a
permutation "where the block's contents are rotated by 90 degrees, 180
degrees or 270 degrees." Id. at 8 (citing Spec. ,r 51). According to
Appellants, "[ t ]he only understanding of rotation that makes sense in that
context is a true 'rotation' of the block as illustrated above, in which the full
contents of the block are not rearranged relative to each other, but rather the
block as a whole is rotated" and "[t]his is both the ordinary and customary
meaning of the phrase 'rotating the block' and is consistent with the usage of
this phrase in the specification." Id. at 8-9.
With this interpretation, Appellants argue Robert does not teach
"rotating the block" because Robert distinguishes the rearrangement of the
blocks through "circular shifts" which is different from actually rotating the
block. Id. at 9. According to Appellants, Robert's four possible shifts are
not a rotation of the block. Id. (citing Robert Fig 3). Appellants cite Robert:
In all these states, some circular shifts at the pixel level are
applied in order to simulate a rotation. These circular shifts
enable us to override the problem of interpolation that is inherent
to real (matrix-based) rotation schemes .... These circular shifts
simulate a real rotation without its disadvantages. (Robert, p.
383, col. 2)
The oriented blocks or macroblocks are obtained by applying
very simple circular shifts at the pixel level, thus avoiding the
problems inherent to classical rotation schemes with re-
interpolation. (Robert, p. 386, col. 1)
Id. at 9-10.
Appellants argue Robert teaches that the circular shift, supra, is not a
rotation. Id. at 10. Because Robert teaches avoiding rotation in favor of the
circular shifts, Appellants argue Roberts teaches away from rotating the
block. Id.
5
Appeal2017-010844
Application 13/533,337
Appellants further argue, even if Robert were considered as teaching
rotating the block, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to
combine Mrak and Robert. Id. at 11-13. According to Appellants, Robert
employs circular shifts to make the transform more efficient whereas Mrak
is directed to transform skipping: "[t]hat is, the entire rationale behind
Robert's proposed shift is not present in a transform skipped situation,
meaning a PHOSITA has no reason to tum to Robert's teachings or
incorporate them into a process in which no transform is applied." Id. at 12.
The Examiner finds Robert teaches rotation. Ans. 3--4 ( citing Robert
Figs. 2-3, Table 1). Regarding combining Mrak and Robert, the Examiner
finds both Mrak's and Robert's inventions are related to video encoding and
decoding, thus the teachings of Robert ( e.g., rotating the blocks) can be
combined or modified and included into the system of Mrak to improve the
task of encoder and decoder, and prediction accuracy in video
coding/decoding system. Id. at 4
We are not persuaded by Appellants' interpretation of the term
"rotating" as requiring "the block as a whole" to be rotated wherein
"'rotating' ... is maintaining the internal relationship of the block's
contents, but rotating the orientation of the block by 90, 180, or 270
degrees." Br. 8-9. Neither the claim nor the Specification requires this
interpretation. See, e.g., claim 31, Spec. ,r 51. Claim terms in a patent
application are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Additionally, we note
Appellants provide no evidence to support their proffered interpretation
beyond the limited description in the Specification.
6
Appeal2017-010844
Application 13/533,337
Here, as broadly, but reasonably interpreted, the claims do not exclude
rotating the block in which some, but not all of the contents of the block are
rotated. With this interpretation, we agree with the Examiner's findings that
Robert teaches "rotating" and the disputed limitation. See Robert, Abstract,
Figs. 2, 3, Table 1. In particular, Robert teaches circular shifting which
constitutes rotating. Id.
However, based on the record before us, we are persuaded by
Appellants' argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
been motivated to combine Mrak and Robert as suggested by the Examiner.
In particular, Mrak is directed to transform skipping and does not discuss
rotation whereas Robert is directed to rotation as a technique to improve
transforming such that there would be no reason for the suggested
combination. See Br. 11-13; Mrak Abstract, 1, 2, 4; Robert p. 383, col I; p.
384, col. 2; p. 386, col. 1. Additionally, although the Examiner presents
general reasons for a combination of Mrak and Robert, we note the
Examiner does not directly address Appellants' arguments in the Answer.
On the record before us, the Examiner does not provide sufficient evidence
as required for obviousness. As stated by the Supreme Court, the
Examiner's obviousness rejection must be based on:
"[S]ome articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning
to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." ... [H]owever,
the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977,988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
7
Appeal2017-010844
Application 13/533,337
In view of the above, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 31, and independent claims 39, 46, 54, and 55 as these claims are
commensurate in scope with claim 31. We also do not sustain the rejection
of dependent claims 32-38, 40-45, and 47-53. Cf In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the
independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious .... ").
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 31-55.
REVERSED
8