Ex Parte MacqDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 201713517294 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 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. 13/517,294 06/20/2012 Jean-Frangois Macq LUTZ 201465US01 9788 48116 7590 03/01/2017 FAY STTARPF/T TTf’F.NT EXAMINER 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor LI, TRACY Y The Halle Building Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2487 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2017 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): docketing @ faysharpe.com ipsnarocp @ nokia. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JEAN-FRANQOIS MACQ Appeal 2016-004745 Application 13/517,294 Technology Center 2400 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1—17, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2016-004745 Application 13/517,294 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention is directed to an apparatus and method for encoding and decoding “a plurality of video streams, which requires less processing power both at the encoder and decoder side” (Spec. 2:16—18). Independent claims 1 and 7, reproduced below, are exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. Method for jointly encoding a plurality of video streams, said method including: via a processor: - receiving said plurality of video streams - constructing a plurality of sequences of predicted pixel blocks, - processing and entropy encoding said predicted pixel blocks of said plurality of sequences of predicted pixel blocks with corresponding blocks of said plurality of video streams for generating a plurality of sequences of encoded residual pixel data, wherein said plurality of sequences of predicted pixel blocks are constructed from encoding structure data generated from said plurality of video streams, and wherein said plurality of sequences of encoded residual pixel data is provided together with reference data comprising said encoding structure data as encoded data of said plurality of video streams. 7. Method for decoding at least one encoded video stream comprising at least one sequence of encoded residual pixel data and reference data comprising input encoding structure data, said method including, via a processor, receiving a plurality of sequences of encoded residual pixel data and of said reference data comprising input encoding structure data selecting at least one sequence of encoded residual pixel data pertaining to said at least one encoded video stream and said reference data comprising said encoding structure data, to entropy decode and process said at least one sequence of encoded residual pixel data 2 Appeal 2016-004745 Application 13/517,294 pertaining to said at least one encoded video stream with said encoding structure data to provide at least one sequence of decoded pixel blocks as at least one decoded video stream. REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Hsiang (US 2009/0175333 Al, published July 9, 2009) and Wu (US 6,700,933 Bl; issued Mar. 2, 2004). Final Act. 3—6. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Hsiang, Wu, and Wenger (US 2007/0033494 Al; published Feb. 8, 2007). Final Act. 6—7. The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Hsiang, Wu, and Tsuji (US 2009/0244392 Al; published Oct. 1, 2009). Final Act. 7—8. The Examiner rejected claims 7, 8, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Hsiang, Wu, and Lee (US 2006/0165304 Al; published July 27, 2006). Final Act. 8—9. ANALYSIS Claims 1—6 and 9—14 With respect to claim 1, Appellant contends the combination of Hsiang and Wu does not teach or suggest “jointly encoding a plurality of video streams” using “encoding structure data generated from said plurality of video streams,” as claimed (App. Br. 8, 11; Reply Br. 8). Particularly, Appellant asserts Hsiang and Wu disclose a single input stream and “a single video frame in various stages of down-sampling,” and encode the single 3 Appeal 2016-004745 Application 13/517,294 video frame at multiple resolutions and quality levels (Reply Br. 8; see also App. Br. 8—9, 11—12). Appellant also contends Hsiang and Wu do not teach or suggest “encoded residual pixel data is provided together with reference data that comprises encoding structure data for the plurality of video streams,” as required by claim 1 (App. Br. 8—9, 11). We do not agree. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. Particularly, we agree with the Examiner Hsiang’s highest resolution video frame signal 401, down-sampled version 402, and lowest resolution version 403—generated for each frame of a video signal—form a plurality of “stream or bitstream” video signals (Ans. 9 (citing Hsiang 136; Fig. 3)). Thus, Hsiang’s signals 401, 402, and 403 teach a plurality of video streams jointly encoded by inter-dependent encoders (Ans. 8—9 (citing Hsiang 136; Fig. 3, signals 401, 402, and 403 jointly encoded by encoders 410, 430, 450 and multiplexed into bitstream output 440)). Hsiang’s stream of video frames (e.g., the stream of down-sampled video frames 402 or 403, and the stream of high resolution video frames 401) is commensurate with the term “video stream” as claimed and with the broad description of “video stream” in Appellant’s Specification.1 Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Hsiang teaches jointly encoding a plurality of video streams using encoding structure data generated from the video streams, as recited in claim 1. 1 Appellant’s Specification provides “the notation ‘input video stream ’ and [^output video stream ’ refer to input and output data which can have the form of real streaming video but can also related[sic] to (stored) data files, or any combination of these. The embodiments set out in this description therefore refer to both online and offline encoding of these video data and to any combination thereof’ (Spec. 7:17—22 (emphases added)). 4 Appeal 2016-004745 Application 13/517,294 We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Wu does not teach “reference data comprising said encoding structure data,” as Appellant merely asserts there is no description in Wu of this limitation without persuasive evidence or reasoning rebutting the Examiner’s findings as claimed (App. Br. 8, 11—12; Reply Br. 8—9). We agree with the Examiner Wu’s base layer and enhancement layer of a preceding reconstructed frame teach the claimed “reference data” as the layers of the preceding reconstructed frame are used as reference layers for encoding the next frame (Ans. 9-10 (citing Wu col. 3,11. 60—64, col. 6,1. 66—col. 7,1. 1); Final Act. 4—5 (citing Wu col. 7,1. 50-col. 8,1. 4 (in “the coding scheme in FIG. 4 . . . the next lower reference layer (i.e., base layer 102) of the reconstructed reference frame 1 is used” (emphases added))); see also Wu col. 7,11. 51—53 (“the layer is coded based on a lower reference layer in the preceding reconstructed frame” (emphasis added))). We further agree with the Examiner Wu teaches the reference data comprises “said encoding structure data,” as claimed (Ans. 9-10). In particular, Wu’s Figure 11, column 13, lines 9-15, and column 15, lines 25— 34 disclose the reference data (base layer) comprises encoding structure data represented by Discrete Cosine Transform coefficients DCTo “derived from original image, which is the input video stream” (Ans. 10 (citing Wu Fig. 11; col. 13,11. 9-15 (describing a DCT-encoded base layer 402 produced from an original base layer of the “Coastguard” MPEG video test sequence), col. 15,11. 25—34 {“DCTo denotes the DCT coefficients of the original image. . . . The reconstructed DCT coefficients [are] encoded in base layer and low enhancement layer” (emphases added)), col. 20,11. 8—17)). Since the original video stream’s DCTo coefficients are used to obtain the 5 Appeal 2016-004745 Application 13/517,294 reconstructed DCT coefficients encoded in the reference data (base layer), the DCT0 coefficients encode structure data in the reference data, as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 10 (citing Wu col. 15,11. 25—34)). Additionally, we agree with the Examiner the combination of Hsiang and Wu teaches “encoded residual pixel data is provided together with reference data comprising said encoding structure data as encoded data of said plurality of video streams,” as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 9-10; Final Act. 4—5). Hsiang discloses removing interlayer redundancies from the plurality of video streams 401 and 402, and encodes the streams as enhancement layer bitstreams into one output bitstream 440, thereby generating “encoded residual pixel data” that “is provided ... as encoded data of said plurality of video streams” as claimed (see Hsiang 136, Fig. 3; Ans. 8—9; Final Act. 4 (citing Hsiang | 52; Fig. 23)). In addition, Wu teaches “encoded residual pixel data is provided together with reference data” as claimed (Ans. 9-10). Particularly, Wu provides encoded residual pixel data (as DCT residues compressed into enhancement layers’ bitstreams, col. 13,11. 24—27 of Wu) together with reference data (base layer) (Ans. 9-10 (citing Wu col. 13,11. 9—32, col. 8,11. 35—38)). The combination of (1) Hsiang’s encoded residual pixel data as encoded data of multiple video streams, and (2) Wu’s providing encoded residual pixel data together with reference data teaches and suggests Appellant’s claimed “encoded residual pixel data is provided together with reference data ... as encoded data of the plurality of video streams,” as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 8—10; Final Act. 4—5). Appellant merely states Hsiang and Wu each fail to teach the contested limitation, but has not rebutted the Examiner’s findings regarding the combination of Hsiang and Wu (App. Br. 11 (discussing Hsiang), 12—13 (discussing Wu)). 6 Appeal 2016-004745 Application 13/517,294 For the reasons discussed, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claim 9 argued for substantially the same reasons (App. Br. 14—17). We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2—6 and 10-14 for which no substantive arguments are provided (App. Br. 13—14, 18—21). Claims 7, 8, and 15—17 With respect to independent claims 7 and 15, Appellant asserts the combination of Hsiang, Wu, and Lee does not teach or suggest “sequences of encoded residual pixel data comprised by a video stream’'' (App. Br. 25), and “receiving a plurality of sequences of encoded residual pixel data and reference data comprising said encoding data structure'1'’ (App. Br. 23). Appellant acknowledges Wu discloses a decoder, but contends Wu’s decoder “is merely programmed to decode the base and enhancement layers encoded by the encoder” and “does not receive, input encoding structure data” as claimed. Rather, Wu’s “decoder ... is preprogrammed to perform steps complementary to those performed by the encoder” (Reply Br. 13 (citing Wu col. 5,1. 35—col. 6,1. 37; Figs. 3 and 20) (emphasis added)). We do not agree. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. Particularly, we agree with the Examiner that Wu teaches “receiving a plurality of sequences of encoded residual pixel data” and “decoding at least one encoded video stream comprising at least one sequence of encoded residual pixel data,” as recited in claim 7 (Ans. 19-20; Final Act. 8). As discussed supra with respect to claim 1, Wu’s encoding system generates an encoded video stream comprising encoded residual pixel data (Ans. 9—10, 14). Additionally, Wu’s decoder “is complementary to [Wu’s] video 7 Appeal 2016-004745 Application 13/517,294 encoder” and “receives the layered stream from the encoder, [and] decodes the stream into the original video” thus, decoding a received encoded video stream comprising encoded residual pixel data previously encoded by Wu’s encoder (Ans. 19-20). Lee also discloses a decoder receiving encoded residual pixel data (Final Act. 8—9 (citing Lee 145 (“a new residual, that is obtained by subtracting the reference frame obtained and restored in the lower layer from the new deblocked original frame, is encoded and transmitted to the decoder’'' (emphases added)); Fig. 5). Appellant’s additional arguments that the references “do not teach using the claimed ‘reference data comprising input encoding structure data ’ when decoding a jointly encoded data stream” or “encoding structure data for the plurality of video streams” are not commensurate with the scope of claims 7 and 15 (App. Br. 22, 26 (emphases added)). The claims recite at least one encoded video stream, not a jointly encoded data stream or a plurality of video streams. We are also not persuaded by Appellant that Wu does not teach a decoding method and decoder “receiving . . . reference data comprising input encoding structure data” (emphasis omitted), as recited in claim 7, and similarly recited in claim 15 (Reply Br. 13, 14). Wu’s decoder reconstructs missing video portions using a base layer decoding component that receives and decodes reference data (a base layer) including input encoding structure data (the base layer’s encoding data) (Final Act. 8 (citing Wu col. 6,11. 25—38); Ans. 20; see also Wu col. 21,11. 30-37). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 7 and 15, and dependent claims 8, 16, and 17 for which no substantive arguments are provided (App. Br. 20, 25—26, 29-30). 8 Appeal 2016-004745 Application 13/517,294 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—17 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 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation