Ex Parte Kerofsky

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 13, 2018

13354178 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/354, 178 01119/2012 Louis Joseph KEROFSKY
55648 7590 04/13/2018
CHERNOFF VILHAUER MCCLUNG & STENZEL, LLP
111 SW Columbia Street
Suite 725
PORTLAND, OR 97201
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.
SLA3063.3 (7146.0604) 8093
EXAMINER
ZHOU, ZHIHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/13/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LOUIS JOSEPH KEROFSKY
Appeal2017-000291
Application 13/354, 178 1
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1 and 4, which are the only claims pending. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). A Hearing was held on March 21,
2018.
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to image decoding with dynamic range
constraints, employing a decoder including a de-quantizer. Abstract, Figs. 2,
1 The real party in interest is identified as Sharp Laboratories of America,
Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-000291
Application 13/354, 178
7. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal (disputed limitations emphasized):
1. A decoder that decodes video comprising:
(a) said decoder receives a bitstream containing quantized
coefficient level values representative of a block of video
representative of a plurality of pixels and a quantization
parameter related to said block of video;
(b) a de-quantizer of said decoder de-quantizing said quantized
coefficient level values based upon said quantized coefficient level
values, a transform block size, and said quantization parameter when
said quantized coefficient level values, said transform block size, and
said quantization parameters are jointly within a predefined range of
acceptable values to limit a dynamic range of said dequantizing;
( c) said decoder inverse transforming said dequantized
coefficients to determine a decoded residue;
( d) where the bitstream provided to said de-quantizer includes
a restriction on the largest permitted level value allowed in the
bitstream and the restriction is selected from among a plurality of
different restrictions available to the decoder.
App. Br. 10 (Claims App'x).
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Winger (US 2006/0227866 Al; pub. Oct. 12, 2006)
("Winger") in view of Fuldseth (A. Fuldseth et al., "Transform design for
HEVC with 16 bit intermediate data representation," Joint Collaborative
Team on Video Coding (March 2011)), and Sato et al. (US 2003/0147463
Al; pub. Aug. 7, 2003) ("Sato"). Final Act. 2-5.
Claims 1 and 4 are further rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Winger, Fuldseth, and Zhou (US 2005/0036545
Al; pub. Feb. 17, 2005) ("Zhou"). Final Act. 5-8.
2
Appeal2017-000291
Application 13/354, 178
ANALYSIS
The § 103 Rejection over Winger, Fuldseth, and Sato
Appellant argues, inter alia, the Examiner errs in finding the
combination of Winger, Fuldseth, and Sato teaches or suggests the claim 1
limitation where the bitstream provided to said de-quantizer includes a
restriction on the largest permitted level value allowed in the bitstream and
the restriction is selected from among a plurality of different restrictions
available to the decoder. App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 4--7.
Appellant argues the Examiner acknowledges that Winger and
Fuldseth do not teach the disputed limitation and errs in finding Sato teaches
this limitation. App. Br. 5-7. According to Appellant, Sato teaches clipping
or not clipping QQP values and, therefore, Sato discloses a single restriction,
or not restricting the values at all. Reply Br. 6-7 (citing Ans. 14; Sato i-fi-1
251-252). Appellant further argues the Examiner errs in relying on Sato
paragraphs 263-270 because shifting QQP values does not limit their
dynamic range or otherwise restrict them. Id. According to Appellant, these
portions of Sato describe expanding dynamic range, not restricting it, and are
employed where the parameter is not clipped and no plurality of restrictions
is applicable. Id. Appellant further argues the Examiner errs in relying on
Sato paragraphs 280-282 as these portions apply when the dynamic range of
QQP is not restricted and the term "MAX LEVEL," rather than being a
restriction, "determines the highest number of bits needed to represent a
quantized coefficient for any given QQP in circumstances where the bit
length of the QQP is, in tum not restricted." Id.
In view of the above, on the record before us, we agree with
Appellant's arguments and do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also
3
Appeal2017-000291
Application 13/354, 178
do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 4. Cf In re Fritch, 972 F .2d
1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[D]ependent claims are nonobvious ifthe
independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious .... ").
Because our decision with regard to the disputed limitation is dispositive of
the rejection of these claims, we do not address additional arguments raised
by Appellants.
The § 103 Rejection over Winger, Fuldseth, and Zhou
Appellant argues, inter alia, the Examiner errs in finding the
combination of Winger, Fuldseth, and Zhou teaches or suggests the claim 1
limitation where the bitstream provided to said de-quantizer includes a
restriction on the largest permitted level value allowed in the bitstream and
the restriction is selected from among a plurality of different restrictions
available to the decoder. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 7-9.
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Zhou teaches the claim
1 limitation the restriction is selected from among a plurality of different
restrictions available to the decoder. App. Br. 7. Reply Br. 7-9. According
to Appellant, Zhou teaches clipping to a single bit length and employing the
H. 263 coding standard. App. Br. 7-8 (citing Zhou i-fi-125-27, 29-30).
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Zhou's "different possible
values for level_max" teaches the limitation because this provision relates to
the arbitrary cap on the bit length of a quantization parameter, set by the
H.262 standard. Id. at 8 (citing Zhou i-fi-133-34). According to Appellant,
these portions of Zhou "[have] no bearing on whether different maximum
values for the bit length of a quantized coefficient, available to a decoder,
should be selected." Id.
4
Appeal2017-000291
Application 13/354, 178
Again, we agree with Appellant and in view of the above, on the
record before us, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also do not
sustain the rejection of dependent claim 4. 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 .... ").
Because our decision with regard to the disputed limitation is dispositive of
the rejection of these claims, we do not address additional arguments raised
by Appellants.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Winger, Fuldseth, and Sato.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Winger, Fuldseth, and Zhou.
REVERSED
5