Ex Parte Macq

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2016

12510505 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016)

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.
12/510,505 07/28/2009 Jean-Francois P. Macq LUTZ 201045US01 2016
48116 7590 12/21/2016
FAY STTARPF/T TTf’F.NT
EXAMINER
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2016 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-FRANCOIS P. MACQ
Appeal 2015-004822
Application 12/510,50s1
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-14, which are all the claims pending in
this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is ALCATEL LUCENT.
App. Br. 1.
2 Claims 3 and 7 have been canceled. App. Br. 4, 6.
Appeal 2015-004822
Application 12/510,505
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to a method for encoding video data,
which includes a step of selecting between inter-prediction and intra­
prediction mode. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal and reads as follows:
1. A method for encoding video data, said method
comprising:
selecting between inter-prediction and intra-prediction
mode, wherein, if inter-prediction mode is selected, said
method further includes
sorting at least one type of inter-prediction macroblocks
selected from P and B types into different sub-categories under
the at least one type in accordance with a predetermined
criterion, [the “sorting” step]
arranging all macroblocks of said at least one type and
pertaining to the same sub-category into one slice group,
thereby creating a set of slice groups for this type of
interprediction macroblocks, [the “arranging” step] and
data partitioning the slices of the slice groups of said set
into several network abstraction layer (NAL) unit partitions for
further transmission over a communications network [the “data
partitioning” step].
The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Sun et al. (US 5,247,363; Sep. 21, 1993). Ans. 3.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
2
Appeal 2015-004822
Application 12/510,505
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
Claim 1
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Sun discloses the
“sorting,” “arranging,” and “data performing” steps recited in claim 1. App.
Br. 13-16.
In support of the Examiner’s legal conclusion of anticipation of claim
1, and purely as a matter of claim construction under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, we conclude the “sorting,” “arranging,” and “data
partitioning” steps may never occur if “intra-prediction mode” is selected in
the “selecting between inter-prediction and intra-prediction mode” step. See
Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013-007847, slip op. at 9 (PTAB, April
28, 2016) (precedential) (holding “[t]he Examiner did not need to present
evidence of the obviousness of the remaining method steps of claim 1 that
are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation
of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not
within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent
for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been
met”); see also Ex parte Katz, Appeal No. 2010-006083, 2011 WL 514314,
at *4-5 (BPAI Jan. 27, 2011).
3
Appeal 2015-004822
Application 12/510,505
Here, we apply the precedential guidance of Schulhauser. Therefore,
the Examiner need not present evidence establishing the anticipation of the
“sorting,” “arranging,” and “data partitioning” steps of claim 1 because these
steps are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim (i.e., instances when intra-prediction mode is
selected such that the condition precedent for the “sorting,” “arranging,” and
“data partitioning” steps of claim 1 is not met).
Therefore, we find Appellant’s argument that Sun fails to disclose the
“sorting,” “arranging,” and “data partitioning” steps of claim 1 unavailing
because it is not commensurate with the broadest reasonable interpretation
of claim 1. See Schulhauser, at slip op. 9. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim l.3
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites “The method according to claim 1 further including,
during transmission of said set of several NAL unit partitions, discarding at
least one partition of at least one of said slice groups of said set, in
accordance to a second predetermined criterion related to said predetermined
criterion.”
Claim 4 limits the “transmission” step of claim 1, which as described
above, may never occur under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
claim. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is also not commensurate with
the scope of the claim. On this record and for the above reasons, we sustain
the rejection of claim 4.
3 Moreover, even if the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
included the conditional steps, we would still affirm for the reasons given for
claim 5, infra.
4
Appeal 2015-004822
Application 12/510,505
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites “The method according to claim 1 wherein said
predetermined criterion is related to the size of the residual data contained
within the encoded inter-predicted macroblock, or related to the importance
of this residual data on the visual quality of the reconstructed video at the
decoding side.”
The “predetermined criterion” of claim 1 that is further limited by
claim 2 is a limitation in a method step which may never occur under the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, as explained above for claim
1. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is also not commensurate with the
scope of the claim. On this record and for the above reasons, we sustain the
rejection of claim 2.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites an “encoding apparatus” that performs the method
recited in claim 1. As explained above, the method steps are optional as
recited in claim 1. However, the broadest reasonable interpretation of an
apparatus claim having structure that performs a function that only needs to
occur if a condition precedent is met still requires structure for performing
the function should the condition occur. Accordingly, unlike claim 1 which
is written in a manner that does not require all of the steps to be performed
should the condition precedent not be met, claim 5 is limited to the structure
capable of performing all the recited functions. Thus, in order to show
anticipation, the Examiner must cite prior art that discloses each such
structure.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 because Sun
does not disclose an encoding apparatus, instead merely disclosing an
5
Appeal 2015-004822
Application 12/510,505
apparatus for transmitting video signals. App. Br. 18 (citing Sun 1:31-32).
Appellant further argues that although Sun discloses “encoding,” Sun does
not disclose “the encoder recited in claim 5.” Reply Br. 18. We are not
persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Sun
discloses an apparatus for encoding video signals (an “encoding apparatus”).
Ans. 12 (citing Sun 1:11-15). Appellant has failed to persuasively rebut the
Examiner’s finding that Sun discloses “an encoding apparatus,” and
Appellant’s argument that Sun’s encoding apparatus is not “the encoder
recited in claim 5” is addressed with respect to the particular limitations of
claim 5 below.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Sun discloses the
“sorting” step recited in claim 5. App. Br. 13-16. In particular, Appellant
argues Sun discloses dividing frames into slices, which is different than the
claimed “sorting” because the divided image lines are processed in the order
in which they appear in a manner similar to the default behavior from the
H.264 standard. App. Br. 14.
Appellant also argues Sun does not disclose the “arranging” step
because Sun divides a frame into slices according to raster-scan order
instead of arranging frames into a slice group “based on a sorting.” App. Br.
14-15.
In addition, Appellant argues Sun does not disclose the “data
partitioning” step because Sun is silent with regard to NAL units and does
not disclose data partitioning slices into several NAL unit partitions for
further transmission over a communications network. App. Br. 15-16.
Appellant argues Sun is directed toward error concealment, not processing
signals for further transmission. App. Br. 16.
6
Appeal 2015-004822
Application 12/510,505
Appellant further argues the Examiner employs “impermissible
hindsight” in interpreting Sun as disclosing the “sorting,” “arranging,” and
“data partitioning” steps recited in claim 5. App. Br. 14-16.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. With regard to the
“sorting” and “arranging” steps, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Sun
discloses sorting and arranging P and B macroblocks into slices according to
geometric criteria. Ans. 5-6 (citing Sun Fig. 1, 2:42—48). As found by the
Examiner, the P and B macroblocks correspond to the claimed “at least one
type of inter-prediction macroblocks selected from P and B types” and the
geographic criteria corresponds to the “predetermined criterion.” Id., Final
Act. 10-11. The geographically grouped macroblocks correspond to the
claimed “sub-categories.” Id., Final Act. 10-11.
With regard to the “data partitioning” step, the Examiner finds, and
we agree, Sun discloses arranging compressed video signals in service type
specific transport packets for transmission. Ans. 9 (citing Sun 1:37—39).
We agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
NAL unit partition in light of the Specification, and in particular the failure
of the Specification to define the term, includes Sun’s transport packets that
are made up of macroblocks. Ans. 9 (citing Sun 3:29-31). We, therefore,
sustain the rejection of claim 5. Appellant argues the patentability of claims
8 and 14 for the same reasons as claim 5. App. Br. 19, 21, 22. We,
therefore, also sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 14 for the same reasons.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites “[t]he encoding apparatus according to claim 5
wherein said predetermined criterion is related to the size of the residual data
contained within the encoded interpredicted macroblock, or related to the
7
Appeal 2015-004822
Application 12/510,505
importance of this residual data on the visual quality of the reconstructed
video at the decoding side.”
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6 because Sun
does not disclose sorting macroblocks of a selected at least one type
according to the size of associated residual data. App. Br. 10-11,19. The
Examiner finds Sun discloses P and B blocks, which are associated with
different priorities and different amounts of prediction and resulting residual
data and, therefore, the distinction between P and B blocks reads on the
recited “predetermined criterion.” Ans. 9-10. Appellant responds that the
Examiner uses impermissible hindsight because the Final Action states that
the predetermined criterion “can” sort the intra-coded frames by P and B
type. Reply Br. 16.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. As found by the
Examiner, P and B blocks are associated with different priorities and these
priorities affect the resulting residual data. Accordingly, Sun’s disclosure of
sorting P and B macroblocks using geometric criteria satisfies the “sorting”
recited in claim 6. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 6.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites “[t]he encoding apparatus according to claim 8,
wherein the transmitter is further configured to before transmission, under
some operational conditions, discard at least one partition of at least one of
said slice groups of said set, in accordance to a second predetermined
criterion related to said predetermined criterion.”
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 because Sun
does not disclose “NAL partitions” and, therefore, does not disclose
discarding NAL partitions. App. Br. 17-20. We are not persuaded of
8
Appeal 2015-004822
Application 12/510,505
Examiner error. As explained above with respect to claim 5, we agree with
the Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of NAL unit
partition includes Sun’s transport packets that are made up of macroblocks.
Ans. 9 (citing Sun 3:29-31). Accordingly, Sun’s disclosure of skipping
macroblocks during the coding process satisfies the claimed “discarding” of
“NAL unit partitions.” We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 9.
Appellant argues the patentability of claims 10-12 for the same reasons as
claim 9. App. Br. 20-21. We, therefore, sustain the rejections of claims 10-
12 for the same reasons.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-6, and
8-14.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9