Ex Parte Luo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2016

12932168 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/932, 168 02/18/2011
7590 02/22/2016
Robert D, Shedd, THOMSON LICENSING LLC
PA TENT OPERA TIO NS
P. 0. BOX 5312
PRINCETON, NJ 08543-5312
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jiancong Luo
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.
PU100042 5610
EXAMINER
OWENS, TSION B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/22/2016 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 JIANCONG LUO, W ANRONG LIN,
and
RICHARD EDWIN GOEDEKEN,
Appeal2014-001637
Application 12/932, 168
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
JON A. JURGOV AN, 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 1-7, 9-15, 17, and 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-001637
Application 12/932, 168
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "method and apparatus for
efficient encoding of multi-view coded video data" (Spec. 1:10-12).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. An apparatus, comprising:
one or more encoders for encoding image data for a
plurality of pictures for at least two views of multi-view video
content, wherein the image data is encoded in parallel in a
plurality of at least one of threads and processes using a
plurality of processors in order to generate a resultant bitstream
there from,
wherein when encoding corresponding ones of the
plurality of pictures for the at least two views, a time lag is
introduced between encoding different ones of the at least two
views to provide a staggered timing for encoding at least some
of the corresponding ones of the plurality of pictures for the at
least two views in parallel, and wherein the plurality of the at
least one of threads and processes are automatically aligned
based on the staggered timing, the staggered timing being
implicitly configured using a communication mechanism
between the plurality of the least one of threads and processes.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-5 and 9-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Pandit (US 2009/0225826 Al; Sep. 10, 2009)
and Nakamura (US 2008/0089428 Al; pub. Apr. 17, 2008).
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 9, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Pandit, Nakamura, and Foote (US
2006/0214934 Al; pub. Sep. 28, 2006).
The Examiner rejected claims 6, 7, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
2
Appeal2014-001637
Application 12/932, 168
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Pandit, Nakamura, Foote, and Lin (US
2008/0253461 Al; Oct. 16, 2008).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Pandit, Nakamura, and Foote does not teach Appellants' claimed invention
(App. Br. 11, 15). Appellants do not contest Pandit's limitations. Rather,
Appellants contend Nakamura does not expressly disclose implicitly
configuring staggered timing (App. Br. 14--15) and Foote does not remedy
Pandit's and Nakamura's deficiency (App. Br. 20). That is, Foote is directed
to "simply using a mutex to prevent more than one thread from accessing a
variable at any given time. However, the limitations of Claims 1, 9, and 17-
18 go far beyond such a simple teaching ... " (App. Br. 21 ). We do not
agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as our own (Ans. 3,
6-9). We particularly agree with the Examiner Nakamura discloses "[a]
time lag ... between ... different ones of the at least two views to provide a
staggered timing for encoding at least some of the corresponding ones of the
plurality of pictures" (Ans. 8; Nakamura i-fi-131-32, 75, 79; Figs. 2-3). Thus,
we agree Nakamura discloses a staggered approach as claimed (Ans. 6-9).
We also agree with the Examiner's citing of Foote for disclosing and
implicitly configuring a staggered timing "using a communication
mechanism between the plurality of the at least one of threads and
processes" and how it can be combined with Nakamura to implicitly
configure thread timing in a parallel multi-threaded environment (Ans. 11;
Foote i-fi-144, 49, 56). Appellants' statement that their claims go beyond such
a simple teaching (App. Br. 21) without more, is merely attorney argument
3
Appeal2014-001637
Application 12/932, 168
without persuasive evidence to back up such an allegation. We also note
there is nothing in Appellants' Specification supporting their argument that
the staggered timing be implicitly, rather than explicitly, configured.
Appellants' Specification merely states "In practice, the staggered timing
usually does not need to be explicitly declared or configured" (Spec. 12:28-
29). Thus, there is no requirement that staggering must be implicit or even
that it is challenging to make staggering implicit rather than explicit, as
Appellants contend (App. Br. 23). Lastly, Appellants merely recite the
claim language, recite paragraphs from the cited references, and state the
references do not teach such limitations, without providing persuasive
argument, evidence, or reasoning (see, e.g., App. Br.12-14, 17, 19, 22).
Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner's
reading of the claims on the cited combination of references is overly broad,
unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification. Thus, for the above
reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We find the weight of the
evidence supports the Examiner's ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness,
and sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 9, 17, and 18, and claims
2-5 and 10-13, not separately argued.
Appellants separately argue claims 6, 7, 14, and 15 (App. Br. 26-31 ).
Appellants assert the same arguments as those presented for claims 1 and 9
and also contend claims 6 and 14 recite processes that "now explicitly
involve[s] decoding each slice ... "(App. Br. 30). Appellants do not address
Nakamura, which the Examiner finds discloses staggered decoding of
pictures can be performed on a slice basis (Ans. 13; Nakamura i-f 94) or Lin,
which the Examiner finds discloses processing each slice independently to
allow for parallel encoding (Ans. 5-6, 14; Final. Act. 5---6; see Lin i-fi-153, 56,
4
Appeal2014-001637
Application 12/932, 168
Abstract). In Appellants' Reply Brief we are asked to consider arguments
against Lin that could have been presented in the Principal Brief on Appeal,
but were not (Reply 31-34). The Board will not consider such belated
arguments. (See 37 CPR 41.41(b)(2) (2012) "Any argument raised in the
reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to
an argument raised in the examiner's answer, including any designated new
ground of rejection, will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the
present appeal, unless good cause is shown."). Thus, for the above reasons,
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 6 and 14, and 7 and 15.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9-15, 17, and 18 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
5