Ex Parte Jeong et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 20, 201713196850 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/196,850 08/02/2011 Hyeonkuk Jeong APLE.P0269 4612 62224 7590 ADELI LLP 11859 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 408 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 EXAMINER WERNER, DAVID N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2487 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2017 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 HYEONKUK JEONG, ROBERT GARCIA JR., XIAOSONG ZHOU, DOUGLAS S. PRICE, and JOE S. ABUAN Appeal 2017-004474 Application 13/196,850 Technology Center 2400 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—14 and 16—32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2017-004474 Application 13/196,850 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Introduction Appellants’ invention relates to encoder and decoder selection for video communications between devices. Abstract; Spec. 3. Claims 1, 14, 22, and 26 are the independent claims on appeal. Claims 1, 14, and 26 are reproduced below (disputed limitations italicized): 1. For a first device participating in a video communications session with a second device, a method comprising: receiving sets of encoding features supported by each of one or more decoders of the second device; selecting, while initiating the video communications session with the second device, (i) a first encoder for the video communications session from a plurality of encoders available to the first device, the plurality of encoders comprising at least one hardware encoder and at least one software encoder, and (ii) a set of encoding features of the selected first encoder, the selections based on the sets of encoding features received from the second device; encoding a video bitstream in a particular encoding format using the selected set of encoding features of the first encoder; transmitting an encoded video bitstream to the second device along with information identifying the selected features in order for the second device to select a decoder to decode the encoded video bitstream; detecting a change in conditions at the first device; and 1 Our Decision makes reference to Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed January 18, 2017) and Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed June 14, 2016), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November 18, 2016) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed December 8, 2015). 2 Appeal 2017-004474 Application 13/196,850 selecting, in response to the detected change, a second, separate encoder for encoding subsequent images of the video bitstream in the same particular encoding format using a different set of encoding features supported by the second encoder. 14. A non-transitory machine readable medium of a first device, the machine readable medium storing a video conferencing application which when executed by at least one processing unit of the first device participates in a videoconference with a second device, the video conferencing application comprising sets of instructions for: transmitting, to the second device, sets of encoding features supported by each of a plurality of decoders of the first device, the plurality of decoders comprising at least one hardware decoder and at least one software decoder that both decode bitstreams encoded in a same particular encoding format, wherein the second device uses the sets of encoding features to select an encoder from a plurality of encoders while initiating the videoconference with the first device; receiving an encoded video bitstream from the second device along with a set of features used to encode the bitstream at the second device in the particular encoding format; based on the set of features used to encode the bitstream, selecting a first decoder from the plurality of decoders at the first device for decoding the bitstream from the second device by selecting a highest priority decoder of the plurality of decoders that supports all features used to encode the bitstream; and in response to receiving a modified bitstream during the video conference, selecting a second, separate decoder of the plurality of decoders that supports all of the features used to encode the modified bitstream. 3 Appeal 2017-004474 Application 13/196,850 26. For a first device participating in a videoconference with a second device, a method comprising: selecting, while initiating the videoconference with the second device, an encoder from a plurality of encoders of the first device and a first set of encoding features supported by the selected encoder based on network conditions between the first device and second device, local resource usage at the first device, power consumption by the different encoders, and encoding features supported by decoders of the second device, the selected encoder for encoding a first video bitstream; transmitting, to the second device, the first video bitstream encoded by the selected encoder during the videoconference; receiving, from the second device, a second video bitstream encoded by an encoder of the second device during the video conference with a second set of encoding features, wherein the first set of encoding features is different from the second set of encoding features; and selecting a decoder from a plurality of decoders at the first device based on a priority order of the plurality of decoders and the second set of encoding features used to encode the second video bitstream. Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejected claims 26—31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cohen (US 2008/0040453 Al; Feb. 14, 2008) and Huang (US 7,984,179 Bl; July 19, 2011). Ans. 2-6. The Examiner rejected claims 22—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cohen, Huang, Johnston (US 2010/0223647 Al; Sept. 2, 2010). Ans. 6-10. 4 Appeal 2017-004474 Application 13/196,850 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 11—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hannuksela (US 2008/0175325 Al; July 24, 2008), Bronte (US 6,061,709; May 9, 2000), Huang, and Johnston. Ans. 10-14. The Examiner rejected claims 14 and 16—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cohen, Huang, Johnston, and Bronte. Ans. 14—18. The Examiner rejected claims 3—5, 8—10, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hannuksela, Bronte, Huang, Johnston, and Cohen. Ans. 18—20. Issues on Appeal Among the several issues presented by Appellants, the dispositive issues on appeal are: 1. Did the Examiner err in finding Johnston teaches or suggests “a second, separate encoder for encoding subsequent images of the video bitstream in the same particular encoding format using a different set of encoding features,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly required by claim 22 (App. Br. 13—15, 29—30; Reply Br. 2-3, 9)? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding Cohen teaches or suggests “transmitting, to the second device, sets of encoding features supported by each of a plurality of decoders of the first device . . . wherein the second device uses the sets of encoding features to select an encoder from a plurality of encoders while initiating the videoconference with the first device,” as recited in claim 14 (App. Br. 20-21; Reply Br. 5)? 5 Appeal 2017-004474 Application 13/196,850 3. Did the Examiner err in finding Cohen teaches or suggests “selecting a decoder from a plurality of decoders at the first device based on . . .the second set of encoding features used to encode the second video bitstream,” as recited in claim 26 (App. Br. 33—35; Reply Br. 10—11)? ANALYSIS Issue 1 Claim 1 requires a first encoder for encoding video “in a particular encoding format,” and a second, separate encoder for encoding subsequent video images “in the same particular encoding format” in response to a selected change. App. Br. 49. Claim 22 similarly requires a first encoder for encoding “in a particular encoding format” and a second, separate encoder for encoding “in the same particular encoding format.” Id. at 54. The Examiner finds Johnston teaches a device having first and second encoders (encoder modules 220) for encoding different profile versions of media content in the same particular encoding format. Final Act. 12—13, 17— 18 (citing Johnston || 23—24, 34—35). The Examiner does not point to any explicit disclosure in Johnston of different encoders using the same format. Rather, the Examiner cites one embodiment of Johnston that explicitly describes first and second encoders encoding different profiles in different formats. Ans. 20—21 (citing Johnston 124). The Examiner further asserts that Johnston discloses other embodiments, and “[bjecause only one of the embodiments is described as having the distinguishing feature of different formats, it does not follow that each of the embodiments contains the same feature.” Id. Based on this statement, we understand the Examiner’s position to be that Johnston’s disclosure of one embodiment in which 6 Appeal 2017-004474 Application 13/196,850 profiles are generated in different encoding formats implies that there are other embodiments in which profiles are generated by different encoders in the same encoding format. Appellants argue Johnston teaches encoders having different encoding formats for generating main and lower profiles, but does not teach separate encoders for encoding in the same encoding format. App. Br. 14. Appellants note that “nowhere does Johnston describe selecting a separate encoder for encoding subsequent images in a same particular format” as the first encoder. Id. “Instead, Johnston describes a media distribution device with several different encoders that each encode in a different format.” Id. Appellants’ arguments are persuasive. We agree that the Examiner has not identified any portion of Johnston that teaches or suggests different encoders using the same encoding format. Johnston clearly describes one embodiment with encoders using different encoding formats (MPEG-2, H.264, and VC-1 formats) across main and lower profiles. Johnston 124. In the Examiner’s view, this embodiment implies that other disclosed embodiments have separate encoders using the same encoding format across profiles. To support this position, the Examiner asserts that a prior art reference must be considered “as a whole.” Ans. 21. Additionally, the Examiner refers to another disclosed embodiment in which “the lower profile copies have lower resolution and higher error correction data.” Id. (citing Johnston 124). The Examiner, however, does not elaborate as to how this particular disclosure, which does not address encoding formats, teaches or suggests encoders using the same encoding format. Based on the paragraphs of Johnston cited by the Examiner (23—24 and 34—35), we find a preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner’s position that 7 Appeal 2017-004474 Application 13/196,850 Johnston teaches selecting first and second encoders encoding “in the same particular encoding format.” For the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 22 or dependent claims 2—13, 23—25, and 32. Issue 2 Claim 14 requires “transmitting, to the second device, sets of encoding features supported by each of a plurality of decoders of the first device . . . wherein the second device uses the sets of encoding features to select an encoder from a plurality of encoders while initiating the videoconference with the first device.” As we understand the final rejection, the Examiner finds Cohen teaches video conferencing between a first device (controller 106) and a second device (user device 108), with the second device transmitting to the first device sets of encoding features supported by each of a plurality of decoders of the first device. Final Act. 19 (citing Cohen || 34, 64, 72). The Examiner appears to find alternatively that Cohen teaches encoding parameters suggested by the controller to the encoder (in media source 102) also must be received by a user device, so that a first device (media source) transmits encoding features to a second device (user device). Ans. 24 (citing Cohen H 6-8, 27, 44). First, Appellants argue that Cohen’s controller 106 is not an end-point for bi-directional communication that participates in a videoconference with another device. App. Br. 20—21. Appellants explain that Cohen’s controller determines encoding parameters for the media source to use for encoding content that the controller distributes to user devices, but the controller never 8 Appeal 2017-004474 Application 13/196,850 participates in videoconferencing, which occurs between the media source and a user device. Id. Second, Appellants argue Cohen’s media source does not transmit sets of encoding features to the user device. Id. Appellants note that “[n]one of the devices (e.g., media source or user devices) described in Cohen receive encoding parameters from other devices.” Id. at 21. Appellants’ arguments are persuasive. First, we note Cohen teaches a controller controlling the encoding process of the media source and transmitting the encoded media data to user devices, the media source and user devices serving as end-points for bidirectional communications such as videoconferencing. Cohen H 31, 37, 39. As correctly pointed out by Appellants, the media source and the user device, but not the controller, participate in videoconferencing, and therefore the controller cannot be either the claimed first device or the claimed second device. Second, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established that the media source in Cohen transmits sets of encoding features to the user device. As Appellants point out in their Reply Brief, the “user” referred to in paragraph 44 of Cohen is the user at the media source (see Cohen Fig. 3), not one of the user devices participating in a videoconference with the media source. Reply Br. 5. Thus, this paragraph of Cohen does not describe transmission of encoding features between a first and second device participating in a videoconference. For these reasons, the Examiner has not identified any portion of Cohen that teaches or suggests a first device participating in a video conference with a second device and transmitting encoding features to the second device, as required by claim 14. Because a preponderance of the 9 Appeal 2017-004474 Application 13/196,850 evidence does not support the Examiner’s position that Cohen teaches “transmitting, to the second device, sets of encoding features supported by each of a plurality of decoders of the first device . . . wherein the second device uses the sets of encoding features to select an encoder from a plurality of encoders while initiating the videoconference with the first device,” we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 or dependent claims 16—21. Issue 3 Claim 26 requires “selecting a decoder from a plurality of decoders at the first device” based on the encoding features used to encode the second video bitstream at the second device. App. Br. 34. The Examiner finds Cohen teaches a plurality of decoders (codecs) at a first device (media source) and second device (user device). Final Act. 8; Ans. 26, 29. The Examiner further finds the first device (media source) selects a decoder based on the encoding features of a second device (user device). Final Act. 8; Ans. 26, 29. Appellants argue Cohen teaches the controller sends encoding features, based on the requirements of the user device, to a media source to select an encoder for encoding media content, not to select a decoder. App. Br. 34—35; Reply Br. 11. We agree with Appellants. Cohen’s controller takes into consideration features of the user device and then suggests specific encoding features to the media source. Cohen || 44, 48, 52, 72. The Examiner has not shown that Cohen teaches selecting a decoder based on the encoding features of the user device. Therefore, a preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner’s position that Cohen teaches selecting a decoder at the first device based on the encoding features used at 10 Appeal 2017-004474 Application 13/196,850 the second device. Based on the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 26 or dependent claims 27—31. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—14 and 16—32 under § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of cited references. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—14 and 16—32 are reversed. REVERSED 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation