Ex Parte Huang et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 28, 2018

14235080 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/235,080 01/26/2014 Yu-Wen Huang
129268 7590 10/02/2018
McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP
280 Interstate North Circle SE
Suite 550
Atlanta, GA 30339
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.
251363-1400 3323
EXAMINER
SULLIVAN, TYLER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2018 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):
uspatents@mqrlaw.com
dan.mcclure@mqrlaw.com
gina.silverio@mqrlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YU-WEN HUANG, CHIA-YANG TSAI,
CHING-YEH CHEN, CHIH-MING FU,
and
SHAW-MINLEI 1
Appeal2018-003248
Application 14/235,080
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3-9, 11-15, and 17-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Mediatek, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal2018-003248
Application 14/235,080
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to a "method and apparatus for
reducing the complexity of [an] Adaptive Loop Filter (ALF) by using ALF
coefficients with constrained data range." Spec. ,r 2.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method for processing of coded video using an ALF
(adaptive loop filter) circuit, wherein parameters of the ALF
comprise a center coefficient and at least one non-center
coefficient, the method comprising:
receiving reconstructed video data corresponding to
coded video data;
receiving the center coefficient and said at least one non-
center coefficient, wherein the center coefficient is disposed at a
center position of a filter shape formed by the center coefficient
and the at least one non-center coefficient, wherein a value of
the center coefficient is clipped to a first constrained data range
if the value of the center coefficient falls outside the first
constrained data range, and wherein a value of each non-center
coefficient is clipped to a second constrained data range if the
value of each non-center coefficient falls outside the second
constrained data range, and wherein the first constrained data
range of the center coefficient is different from the second
constrained data range of said at least one non-center
coefficient; and
filtering by the ALF circuit to the reconstructed video
data using the parameters.
REJECTIONS and REFERENCES
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3---6, 9, 11, 12, 15, and 17-19 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) based upon Bjontegaard (US 2013/0003871 Al,
published Jan. 3, 2013), Ugur (US 8,416,861 B2, issued Apr. 9, 2013), and
Zhang (US 2004/0076333 Al, published Apr. 22, 2004). Final Act. 8-16.
2
Appeal2018-003248
Application 14/235,080
The Examiner rejected claims 7, 8, 13, and 14 under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. I03(a) based upon Bjontegaard, Uger, Zhang, and Coban (US
2013/0010865 Al). Final Act. 16-18.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds "Bjon teaches a 2D adaptive loop filter (ALF) in
which the filter may also be set-up to perform 1-D ALF filtering and teaches
coefficient constraints," "U gur teaches more specific constraints to use for
coefficient selection," and "Zhang teaches similarly to U gur coefficient
constrained ranges for searching for coefficients for an ALF and more
clearly teaches each coefficient may have different constraints." Final Act.
8. 2 The Examiner reasons it "would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bjon's teachings
with Ugur's and Zhang's considerations of constraints on coefficient
selection." Id.
Appellants contend the Examiner errs, arguing Bjontegaard, Ugur,
and Zhang "either individually or in combination, do not disclose or suggest
that the first constrained data range of the center coefficient is different from
the second constrained data range of said at least one non-center
coefficient," as claimed. App. Br. 7, 8, 9. Specifically, Appellants contend
although Bjontegaard teaches converting coefficients to an integer, it does
not teach or suggest the claimed constraints on the center coefficient and
non-center coefficient. App. Br. 8. Appellants further argue U gur is
deficient as only positive and negative image pixel values having an integer
2 The Examiner refers to Bjontegaard as "Bjon" for efficiency throughout
the Final Action and Answer.
3
Appeal2018-003248
Application 14/235,080
range of [O, 255], limiting "the coefficients by restricting the sum of positive
coefficients to being less than a number (e.g., 128) and restricting the sum of
negative coefficients to being larger than a negative number (e.g., -128)."
Id. That is, Appellants assert, Ugur only teaches "constraints for the sum of
positive coefficients and the sum of negative coefficients rather than
constraints for coefficients at different filter positions (e.g., center and non-
center)." App, Br. 9. Appellants further contend Zhang's paragraph 72
teaches a search region is characterized by its center ( the current minimum
filter). App. Br. 9. Thus, Appellants argue, Zhang teaches a search region,
which is a set of filters, rather than coefficients, surrounding a specified
filter. A reduction in candidate filters "may be based on the position of the
filter candidates relative to the current minimum filter." Id. Therefore,
Appellants assert Zhang fails to teach or suggest "anything related to center
and non-center coefficients of a filter, much less using different constrained
data range to clip these coefficients. We do not agree.
Initially, we agree with the Examiner Appellants are arguing the
references separately and not as a combination. Ans. 14. Appellants argue
none of the references teach center and non-center coefficients, but do not
address the Examiner's findings concerning the particular teaching of the
references as applied in rejecting the claims or explain why the teachings
could not be combined. Thus, we find the Examiner has provided a
comprehensive response to Appellants' arguments supported by a
preponderance of evidence. Thus, we adopt the Examiner's findings and
explanations provided therein. Ans. 10-19; Final Act. 8-18. Specifically,
as the Examiner finds, the claims only require "two 'different[ ... ]
constrained data range[ s]. "' Ans. 11. Bjontegaard teaches a constrained data
4
Appeal2018-003248
Application 14/235,080
range applied to the non-center coefficients (see ,r,r 50, 63---65) and a second
constrained data range for the center coefficient (see ,r,r 66---67). Id. We also
agree with the Examiner "there is no limitation the constrained data ranges
necessarily be independent," they only need to be different. Id.
The Examiner cites U gur for the constrained data ranges, which are
similar to those recited in Appellants' Specification. Ans, 12. The
Examiner also finds the non-center coefficients would be freely selected
from the constrained data range based on the optimization teachings of
Bjontegaard. Id. The Examiner then cites Zhang, which is similar to Ugur
"in which constrained data ranges ... are applied to coefficients in a filter
design process, .... after the non-center coefficients are designed,"
Bjontegaard's teachings are "employed to compute the center coefficient."
Ans. 13-14. Appellants do not persuasively address these findings.
Appellants contend Zhang's search region is characterized by its
center ( current minimum filter), search ranges of filter coefficients within
the candidate filters, and shape. App. Br 9; Reply Br. 5. However, this
argument is an improper attack on Zhang individually; whereas the rejection
is based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
(CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Particularly, the combination of Zhang's teachings of different filters having
different constraints combined with Bjontegaard's teachings of a center
coefficient and a non-center coefficient, as set forth by the Examiner, would
result in the argued claim limitation. One skilled in the art would have
known that center and non-center coefficients can be different in light of
Zhang. See, e.g., Zhang ,r 72. That is, Zhang teaches different filters, but
given there are only two possibilities for the coefficients, same or different,
5
Appeal2018-003248
Application 14/235,080
it is a merely a design choice. See Ans. 13; see also KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007):
If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable
variation,§ 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason,
if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person
of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve
similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.
Furthermore:
[ w ]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable
solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue
the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads
to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Id at 421. We further agree with the Examiner Appellants argue limitations
not found in the claims. Ans. 14.
Thus, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We find the weight of
the evidence supports the Examiner's ultimate legal conclusion of
obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1, independent claims 9, 15, and 19, argued for substantially the same
reasons, and dependent claims 3---6, 11, 12, 17, and 18, argued for their
dependency on their respective independent claim. We also summarily
sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 7, 8, 13, and 14, for
which Appellants do not present arguments. See Final Act. 16-18; App. Br.
6.
6
Appeal2018-003248
Application 14/235,080
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-9, 11-15, and 17-19 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
7