Ex Parte Hugosson et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 31, 2018

Added 110712 PRPS --> 12929639 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/929,639 02/04/2011
73459 7590 06/04/2018
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ola Hugosson
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.
JRL-550-1340 2466
EXAMINER
BRANIFF, CHRISTOPHER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/04/2018 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OLA HUGOSSON
and
DOMINIC HUGO SYMES
Appeal2017-011152
Application 12/929, 639 1
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 17-30, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse. 2
1 Appellants identify ARM Limited as the real party in interest. (App.
Br. 3.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification ("Spec.") filed February 4, 2011,
the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed June 11, 2015, the Appeal
Brief ("App. Br.") filed December 1, 2015, the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.")
mailed May 19, 2017, and the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed July 19, 2017.
Appeal2017-011152
Application 12/929,639
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to a method for "decod[ing] an encoded video
bitstream" using "a first parsing unit and a second parsing unit, each
configured to independently parse the encoded video bitstream to derive" a
"full set of parsing state information, such that any dependencies reliant on
that parsing state information can be resolved in either parsing unit," the full
set of parsing state information having "parsing state information ... on
which subsequent parsing of the encoded video bitstream at least partially
depends." (Spec. 4:20-22; Abstract.)
Independent claim 17, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
17. A method of decoding an encoded video bitstream, said
method comprising the steps of:
receiving said encoded video bitstream comprising frame
header information and macroblock information, said frame
header information defining a sequence of frames and each frame
being composed of macro blocks represented by said macro block
information;
parsing said encoded video bitstream using a first parsing
unit and a second parsing unit, each parsing unit independently
deriving a full set of parsing state information from said encoded
video bitstream on which subsequent parsing of said encoded
video bitstream at least partially depends and which identifies
data dependencies of frames in said encoded video bitstream, and
identifying macroblock information for decoding, and said
parsing step includes parsing all of said frame header information
in both said first parsing unit and in said second parsing unit such
that each parsing unit maintains said full set of said parsing state
information for said encoded video bitstream; and
allocating each frame of macro block information to one of
said first parsing unit and said second parsing unit, wherein said
first parsing unit and said second parsing unit each parse said
macroblock information, skipping macroblock information
2
Appeal2017-011152
Application 12/929,639
allocated to the other parsing unit, the full set parsing state
information derived by each parsing unit identifying data
dependencies of at least one frame allocated to the other parsing
unit.
(App. Br. 17-18 (Claims App'x.).)
REJECTIONS & REFERENCES
(1) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or
35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. (Final
Act. 5.)
(2) Claims 17-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Chen et al. (The Emerging MVC Standard for 3D Video Services, EURASIP
Journal on Advances in Signal Processing (2009: 786015) 1-13 (2009);
"Chen") and Nam et al. (Parallel Parsing of MPEG Video in Heterogeneous
Distributed Environment, High-Speed Networks and Multimedia
Communications (HSNMC) 264--274 (2003); "Nam"). (Final Act. 6-14.)
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claim 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AJA), second paragraph
In support of the§ 112, second paragraph rejection of claim 17 for
being indefinite, the Examiner finds the claimed "'full set of parsing state
information' is unclear to a skilled artisan. It is unclear what constitutes a
full set, what parsing state information is, what form it takes, and how it is
derived." (Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 12-13.)
Appellants argue one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
meaning of "full set of parsing state information" from Appellants'
3
Appeal2017-011152
Application 12/929,639
Specification and the details recited in claim 17. (Reply Br. 3-5; App. Br.
9-10.) We concur with Appellants that the limitation "full set of parsing
state information" is clear in view of Appellants' Specification. Particularly,
Appellants' Specification explains the "full set of parsing state information"
is information about dependencies betweenframes in the full video stream,
such information enabling frames' dependencies to be resolved by either
parsing unit. (Spec. 4:20-22; see also Spec. 6: 16-19, 11: 11-13.) The "full
set of parsing state information" is obtained by "pars[ing] all frame header
information in the video bitstream"; thus, "[ s ]ince both the first parsing unit
and second parsing unit parse all frame header information in the video
bitstream, each is able to maintain a full parsing decode state entirely
independently of the other." (Spec. 4:29-31; see also Spec. 6:2, 12: 17-20,
13: 14--19, 14: 12-14, 15:3-9, Fig. 4A.) That is, the "full set of parsing state
information" is "data associated with the performance of parsing, which
indicates data dependencies of at least one frame allocated to the other
parsing unit, which is used in subsequent parsing of the encoded video
bistream[sic]." (Reply Br. 5; see also App. Br. 10.)
In conclusion, the limitation "full set of parsing state information"
may be broad in scope and encompass a variety of parsing information, but
when interpreted in light of Appellants' Specification, we do not consider it
to be indefinite.
In support of the§ 112, second paragraph rejection, the Examiner also
finds the claimed "dependencies" are unclear. (Final Act. 5.) Particularly,
the Examiner finds (i) "claim [17] recites that subsequent parsing at least
partially depends on the parsing state information, but neither the claims nor
the Specification explain what the particular dependency relationship is" or
4
Appeal2017-011152
Application 12/929,639
"how subsequent parsing can be partially dependent," and (ii) the limitation
"'identifies data dependencies of frames,' is too broad to be definite because
the skilled artisan is aware of a large number of data elements that identify
in some wa[y] data dependencies." (Final Act. 5; Ans. 13.)
Appellants argue the terms "partially depends" and "dependencies"
are discussed in the Specification, and one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand the meaning of these terms. (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5.) We
concur with Appellants; it is clear from Appellants' Specification, what the
claims are referring to as "dependencies" and "partial dependence" when
parsing a bitstream. Numerous examples in Appellants' originally filed
Specification discuss "dependencies" of frames in an encoded video
bitstream. (See Spec. 14:11-25 ("some frames (B frames) [for which] video
encoding efficiency is gained by introducing a parsing dependency between
frames, such that in order to correctly parse a later frame, reference to
previously parsed earlier frame is necessary. This is illustrated in Figure
4A" describing "a 'co-located frame data dependency', meaning that a
macroblock in a later frame will depend on a macroblock in an earlier frame
at the same spatial location within the frame"); see also Spec. 7: 6-12, 8: 11-
12.) Further, the claimed parsing state information as information "on which
subsequent parsing of said encoded video bitstream at least partially
depends" refers to "data relating to state associated with performing parsing,
which is used in subsequent parsing of the encoded video bitstream"; for
example, subsequent parsing can be partially dependent when a data
dependency between two frames affects the order in which the frames can be
parsed. (Reply Br. 4; see also App. Br. 10.) The "Breadth [of a claim] is
5
Appeal2017-011152
Application 12/929,639
not to be equated with indefiniteness." In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693
(CCPA 1971).
We are also unpersuaded that claim 1 7 would be unclear because the
parsing step "is drafted in narrative form" enumerating sub-steps. (See Final
Act. 5.) We agree with Appellants the "parsing" step is clear, and the step's
"narrative" description assists in understanding the interdependencies
between the steps and features recited in claim 17. (App. Br. 10.)
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 112 second paragraph.
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 17-30
Claim 17 requires parsing frame header information of an encoded
video bitstream in both first and second parsing units such that each parsing
unit (i) independently derives a full set of parsing state information from the
bitstream, and (ii) maintains the full set of parsing state information that
identifies data dependencies of the bitstream' s frames and identifies data
dependencies of at least one frame allocated to the other parsing unit.
The Examiner finds Chen teaches two processors PO and P 1 ( of a
multiview video coding (MVC) decoder) independently derive and maintain
a full set of parsing state information, as claimed. (Final Act. 7-8 ( citing
Chen§§ 1.1, 1.2.3, 6); Ans. 14--16 (citing Chen§§ 2, 3, Fig. 8).) We do not
agree.
We agree with Appellants that Chen does not teach or suggest a full
set of parsing state information-which identifies data dependencies of at
least one frame allocated to the other parsing unit-being derived and
maintained by each of first and second parsing units, as required by claim
6
Appeal2017-011152
Application 12/929,639
17. (Reply Br. 8-9; App. Br. 15.) Claim 17 requires two initial parsing
operations, independently performed on a video bitstream by two parsing
units, to derive the same full set of parsing state information. In contrast,
Chen merely discloses processor PO decodes frames of one view (view 0,
e.g., a left eye view) and processor Pl decodes frames of another view (view
1, e.g., a right eye view), but does not teach that processors PO and Pl
independently derive and maintain the same parsing state information. (See
Chen§ 6, p. 10, col. 2.) Rather, each parsing unit (processor) in Chen "only
acquires information regarding its own packets" assigned for decoding
(Reply Br. 8-9; see Chen§ 6.)
Chen also does not teach that processors PO and P 1 each maintains
parsing state information that identifies data dependencies of at least one
frame allocated to the other parsing unit, as claim 17 recites. For example,
Chen's processor Pl only identifies its own view's dependency on (and
awaits notification regarding) another view ( view 0) allocated to processor
PO, but processor Pl does not maintain information identifying data
dependencies of view O allocated to processor PO. (Appeal Br. 15; see Chen
Fig. 9.) Further, the Examiner has not responded to Appellants' arguments
in the Answer. For example, the Examiner states Chen's "decoder maintains
a full set of parsing state information----e.g., maintains information necessary
to parse the bitstream" (see Ans. 15); however, this does not teach that
Chen's two processors PO and Pl (included in the decoder) each maintains a
full set of parsing state information identifying data dependencies, as
claimed (Reply Br. 7-8; App. Br. 13-14). And the Examiner states
"information necessary to parse the multiview bitstream-may be extracted
and used to identify dependencies of frames allocated to one o [ r] the other
7
Appeal2017-011152
Application 12/929,639
parsing units" (see Ans. 16); however, this does not teach each processor
maintaining information on data dependencies of at least one frame
allocated to the other processor (App. Br. 15).
The Examiner also has not shown that the additional teachings of
Nam make up for the above-noted deficiencies of Chen. (App. Br. 14;
Reply Br. 7 .) Thus, for the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 17 and claims 18-30 dependent
therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or
35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 17-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
REVERSED
8