Ex Parte Hemmendorff et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 13, 201913922948 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/922,948 06/20/2013 144365 7590 05/15/2019 Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. P.O. Box 2938 Minneapolis, MN 55402 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Magnus Hemmendorff 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. 338705-US-NP ( 1777 .A68US 1 CONFIRMATION NO. 5081 EXAMINER BOYLAN, JAMES T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/15/2019 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): uspto@slwip.com SLW@blackhillsip.com usdocket@microsoft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MAGNUS HEMMENDORFF, DAVID ZHAO, SERGEY SABLIN, PONTUS CARLSSON, KONRAD HOFBAUER, and SERGEI NIKIFOROV1 Appeal2018-007795 Application 13/922,948 Technology Center 2400 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges. RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9, 11, 13-19, 21, and 22. The Examiner objects to claim 10 as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but indicates the claim would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 1 Appellants name Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC as the real party in interest (App. Br. 3). Appeal2018-007795 Application 13/922,948 Non-Final Act. 24. Claims 12 and 20 are canceled. App. Br. 47, 50 (Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention generally relates to encoding video data. See Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus for encoding video data, the apparatus compnsmg: one or more processors; one or more computer readable storage media storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to: compare a resource requirement associated with encoding the video data using a standard encoding mode with an acceptable resource level; and determine, in advance of encoding a frame, that the resource requirement of the frame will exceed the acceptable resource level; determine a perceptual importance map to map a perceptual significance associated with a portion of the video data to inform a decision to discard the frame at a receiving device; and output the perceptual importance map for transmission embedded in an encoded bitstream; and an encoder configured to: receive an indication in advance of encoding the frame that the resource requirement of the frame will exceed the acceptable resource level; select the portion of the video data to encode using the standard encoding mode in dependence on the perceptual significance associated with that video data; and form at least part of an encoded frame by encoding the portion of the video data using the standard encoding mode and 2 Appeal2018-007795 Application 13/922,948 filling a remainder of the at least part of the encoded frame with data that is associated with a lower resource usage than data generated using the standard encoding mode. App. Br. 44-45 (Claims Appendix). Rejections Claims 1, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2013/0279810 Al, pub. Oct. 24, 2013), Javadtalab et al. (US 2014/0092204 Al, pub. Apr. 3, 2014), Lee et al. (US 2006/0215753 Al, pub. Sept. 28, 2006), and Gu et al. (US 2014/0307103 Al, pub. Oct. 16, 2014). Non-Final Act. 6. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Javadtalab, Lee, Gu, and Peterson et al. (US 5,986,712, iss. Nov. 16, 1999). Id. at 13. Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Javadtalab, Lee, Gu, and Goh (WO 02/058401 Al, pub. July 25, 2002). Id. at 15. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Javadtalab, Lee, Gu, and Wang et al. (US 2006/0238445 Al, pub. Oct. 26, 2006). Id. at 16. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Javadtalab, Lee, Gu, and Xu et al. (US 2013/0208795 Al, pub. Aug. 15, 2013). Id. at 17. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Javadtalab, Lee, Gu, and Lee 2 (US 2004/0158719 Al, pub. Aug. 12, 2004). Id. at 18. 3 Appeal2018-007795 Application 13/922,948 Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Javadtalab, Lee, Gu, and Swenson (US 2012/0263241 Al, pub. Oct. 18, 2012). Id. at 19. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Javadtalab, Lee, Gu,2 and Suarez et al. (US 2004/0062447 Al, pub. Apr. 1, 2004). Id. at 20. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Javadtalab, Lee, Gu, and Hannuksela (US 2003/0138043 Al, pub. July 24, 2003). Id. at 21. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Javadtalab, Lee, Gu, and Cipolli et al. (US 2007/0206673 Al, pub. Sept. 6, 2007). Id. at 22. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § l 12(b) as being indefinite. Id. at 5. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). ANALYSIS Claims 1---8, 11, 13-18, and 22 Appellants contend the cited references fail to teach or suggest claim 1 's "determine a perceptual importance map to map a perceptual 2 Although the heading of the rejection omits Gu, the body of the rejection indicates the rejection is also based on Gu. Non-Final Act. 20. Accordingly, we treat claim 15 as being based upon Li, Javadtalab, Lee, Gu, and Suarez. 4 Appeal2018-007795 Application 13/922,948 significance associated with a portion of the video data to inform a decision to discard the frame at a receiving device." App. Br. 14-19. First, Appellants argue Gu fails to teach or suggest "to discard the frame at [a] receiving device." Id. at 15. Specifically, Appellants argue, "[ w ]hile Gu describes dropping a picture due to packet loss, resulting in freezing with skip distortion, Gu does not describe 'determining to drop a frame based on critical content distortion' . .. as alleged by the Office." Id. at 16-17 (citing Non-Final Act. 10). "Instead," Appellants contend, "Gu describes that a picture can be dropped if it depends on a previous dropped picture, even if only a single macroblock references the previous dropped picture." Id. at 17. Appellants next contend "there is no discussion in Lee or Gu of a perceptual importance map 'to inform a decision to discard the frame at the receiving device."' Id. at 17. Specifically, Appellants argue "Gu is not directed to 'the determination of whether or not a picture is dropped[] because the indication that a picture is ( or is not) dropped is an input to these implementations." Id. Further, Appellants argue "the dropping of a picture in Gu is in no way a preferential decoding technique as described in Lee." Id. at 18. Appellants also argue "Lee's discussion of using ROI for preferential encoding and decoding fails to teach or suggest dropping a frame as a preferential technique." Id. at 19. Finally, Appellants argue "[t]here would be no reason, based on the teachings of Gu 'to inform a decision to discard the frame at a receiving device' with a determined perceptual importance map because Gu simply receives an indication that a picture already has been dropped." Id. 5 Appeal2018-007795 Application 13/922,948 Appellants' arguments attacking Lee and Gu in isolation do not persuasively rebut the underlying factual findings made by the Examiner, which are based upon the combined teachings and suggestions of the cited references. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the Examiner finds, and Appellants do not dispute, Li teaches or suggests the claimed "determine a perceptual importance map to map a perceptual significance associated with a portion of the video data to inform a decision." Non-Final Act. 9-10 (citing Lee, Figs. 3, 7D; ,i,i 49, 77). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Gu discloses "[ d]etermining to drop a frame." Id. at 10 ( emphasis omitted). Specifically, Gu describes "[ v Jarious implementations ... that determine distortion and/or quality of a group dropping that includes one or more dropped pictures." Gu ,i 144. The Examiner finds "[i]t would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device by Li to add the teachings of Gu, in order to determine if the decoder should drop the frame dropping due to distortion of critical content to improve viewer satisfaction." Non-Final Act. 10. Appellants' arguments fail to persuasively address the combined teachings of the references and, therefore, are unpersuasive. Accordingly, Appellants do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Lee and Gu teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Appellants also contend "the motivation to combine Gu with Li is improper." App. Br. 19. Appellants contend "the combination impermissibly alters a fundamental operating principle of Gu" because "Gu 6 Appeal2018-007795 Application 13/922,948 does not describe 'to determine if the decoder should drop the frame ... due to distortion of critical content' as alleged by the Office." Id. at 19-20. Appellants further contend, "[ r Jequiring Gu to determine critical content would requir[ e] the addition of excessive computing over Gu' s existing functionality of receiving an input indicating that the picture was dropped." Id. at 20. We find Appellants' contentions unpersuasive. If a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F .2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). But Appellants have not established that the proposed change would result in such a change in the principle of operation of the prior art as to make the claimed invention nonobvious. Appellants provide insufficient explanation as to why the modification would require excessive computing over Gu's existing functionality. In any event, Gu's teachings that "implementations do not depend on any particular technique for determining when a picture is to be dropped" and "[i]mplementations need not even include the determination of whether or not a picture is ... dropped" cut against Appellants' argument that Gu cannot be combined with Li. See Gu ,-J 144. Further, the Examiner has provided some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int'! v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In particular, the Examiner finds it would have been obvious to combine the references "in order to determine if the decoder should drop the frame dropping due to distortion of critical content to improve viewer satisfaction." Non-Final Act. 7 Appeal2018-007795 Application 13/922,948 10 ( citing Gu ,i 146). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We therefore sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Appellants do not argue separate patentability for claim l's dependent claims. See App. Br. 38-42. We therefore also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2- 8, 11, 13-18, and 22. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 19 and 21 For independent claims 19 and 21, Appellants initially make the same contentions as with claim 1. App. Br. 21-28, 30-36. We find these arguments unpersuasive for the same reasons we articulated above. Appellants then contend "the Office fails to address the feature of 'the perceptual map configured to be transmitted with the encoded frame" of claims 19 and 21. Id. at 28, 36. Specifically, Appellants contend, "[b]ecause [Lee's] ROI [region-of-interest] being received is not for the video that it is being received with, Lee does not teach or suggest 'a perceptual map to map the perceptual significance of the portion of the video data ... configured to be transmitted with the encoded frame." Id. at 29, 37. "Instead," Appellants argue, "Lee describes sending a far-end ROI map for video being received at the near-end within encoded near-end video, and receiving near-end ROI usable to encode near-end video with far-end video." Id. The Examiner relies upon Lee for teaching the disputed limitation. Non-Final Act. 4. In particular, the Examiner finds "Lee discloses in [Fig. 3 and 0079] [t]ransmitting ROI MB (macroblock) map by out of band 8 Appeal2018-007795 Application 13/922,948 signaling to the remote video communication device. The encoded video data is transmitted." Id. We find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Lee's disclosure relates to "region-of-interest (ROI) processing for video telephony (VT)." Lee ,-J 6. In Lee's system, "a local recipient device defines ROI information for video encoded and transmitted by a remote sender device, i.e.,far-end video." Id. ( emphasis added). Likewise, "a recipient may be equipped to send video, i.e., near-end video." Id. ,-i 7 ( emphasis added). For example, a user can define a far-end ROI in a remote video so that the user, upon receipt of the remote video, can see the ROI portion of that video more clearly. See, e.g., id. ,-i 55. Thus, the video data transmitted in Lee includes the far-end ROI map, or in other words, the ROI information for the remote video, not the ROI information for the video data transmitted. See id. ,-i 79. Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that "[b]ecause [Lee's] ROI [region-of-interest] being received is not for the video that it is being received with, Lee does not teach or suggest 'a perceptual map to map the perceptual significance of the portion of the video data ... configured to be transmitted with the encoded frame." App. Br. 29, 37. We therefore do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 19 and 21. Claim 9 Appellants do not address the Examiner's § l l 2(b) rejection of claim 9. See id. at 13; Non-Final Act. 5. We therefore summarily affirm this rejection. See Frye, 94 USPQ2d at 1075 (The Board "reviews ... rejection[ s] for error based upon the issues identified by appellant, and in 9 Appeal2018-007795 Application 13/922,948 light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon," and treats arguments not made as waived.). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims 1-8, 11, 13-18, and 22. We reverse the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 19 and 21. We summarily affirm the Examiner's § 112 (b) rejection of claim 9. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation