Ex Parte NGUYEN et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 3, 2019

13930089 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/930,089 06/28/2013
123084 7590 05/07/2019
Grable Martin Fulton (Marconi)
1914 Skillman Street, Suite 110-144
Dallas, TX 75206
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nguyen NGUYEN
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.
VEBB00106US1 6246
EXAMINER
AN,SHAWNS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/07/2019 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):
spatterson@GCHub.com
prosecution@marconi.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NGUYEN NGUYEN, DAKE HE, and
DAVID FL YNN 1
Appeal2018-006835
Application 13/930,089
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 4--7, 9--12, 23-25, 27-32, and 35--40, which are all of the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Claims 2, 3, 8, 13-22, 26, 33, and 34 have been cancelled.
We REVERSE. 2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies BlackBerry Limited as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2. A statement submitted under 37 C.F.R. § 3.73(c) on
December 21, 2018, identifies V elos Media, LLC as the Applicant, to which
we refer as the Appellant.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant's Appeal Brief filed January 12, 2018
("App. Br."); Appellant's Reply Brief filed June 15, 2018 ("Reply Br.");
Appeal2018-006835
Application 13/930,089
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced
below:
Cho
1. A method of decoding video from a bitstream of encoded
video using a video decoder, the video including a picture
partitioned into coding units, the method comprising:
for one of the coding units,
decoding, from the bitstream, a chroma-low-fidelity flag
associated with that coding unit and associated with a chroma
video component;
if the chroma-low-fidelity flag is set, then determining a
chroma quantization parameter for the chroma video component
based upon a luma quantization parameter and a low-fidelity-
mode offset;
if the chroma-low-fidelity flag is not set, then determining
the chroma quantization parameter for the chroma video
component based upon the luma quantization parameter without
using the low-fidelity-mode offset; and
dequantizing decoded coefficients of the chroma video
component for that coding unit, based upon the chroma
quantization parameter, to produce dequantized coefficients.
References
US 6,463,100 Bl
Sato '463
Kim
Wang
Leontaris
Sato '636
Lin
Shibahara
US 2003/0147463 Al
US 2006/0018559 Al
US 2009/0010338 Al
US 2009/0086816 Al
US 8,139,636 B2
US 2012/0269266 Al
US 2013/0223518 Al
Oct. 8, 2002
Aug. 7, 2003
Jan.26,2006
Jan. 8,2009
Apr. 2, 2009
Mar. 20, 2012
Oct. 25, 2012
Aug. 29, 2013
Examiner's Answer mailed April 25, 2018 ("Ans."); Final Office Action
mailed April 18, 2017 ("Final Act.").
2
Appeal2018-006835
Application 13/930,089
Sato '077
Lim
US 8,768,077 B2
US 2014/0226717 Al
Examiner's Rejections
July 1, 2014
Aug. 14, 2014
Claims 1, 5, 11, 12, 23, 30-34, and 36-38 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, Leontaris, and Sato '636.
Final Act. 5.
Claims 4 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lin, Leontaris, Sato '636, and Cho. Id.
Claims 6 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lin, Leontaris, Sato '636, and Wang. Id.
Claims 7 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lin, Leontaris, Sato '636, Wang, and Sato '463. Id. at 6.
Claims 9 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lin, Leontaris, Sato '636, and Shibahara. Id.
Claims 10 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lin, Leontaris, Sato '636, and Lim. Id.
Claims 29 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lin, Leontaris, Sato '636, and Sato '077. Id.
Claim 40 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Lin, Leontaris, Sato '636, and Kim. Id.
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Lin, Leontaris, and Sato '63 6 teaches
if the chroma-low-fidelity flag is set, then determining a chroma
quantization parameter for the chroma video component based
upon a luma quantization parameter and a low-fidelity-mode
offset; [and]
3
Appeal2018-006835
Application 13/930,089
if the chroma-low-fidelity flag is not set, then determining the
chroma quantization parameter for the chroma video component
based upon the luma quantization parameter without using the
low-fidelity-mode offset,
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 11 and 12. App. Br. 9-
15; Reply Br. 2-3. Specifically, Appellant argues that the combination of
Lin, Leontaris, and Sato '63 6 "does not result in [the] claimed features,"
including that "[t]here is no suggestion that the derivation of chroma QP
[ ( quantization parameter)] change [is] dependent on any factor." App.
Br. 13-14 ( emphasis omitted). That is, Appellant asserts the "essential
insight" the claims recite is that "chroma QP is derived from luma QP[,]
dependent upon a flag ... that signals whether the coding unit is to have
chroma low-fidelity." Id. at 13.
We are persuaded that the Examiner has not shown adequately that
the combination of references teaches the features recited in the claims,
despite the findings. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Lin teaches a
"chroma-low-fidelity flag" for a decoder. Ans. 14--15 (citing Lin ,r 150
( disclosing that "encoder settings, such as adjusted quantization step sizes,
typically do have corresponding information signaled in an encoded content
bit stream" for a decoder to decode when decoding video)); Final Act. 3--4;
see Lin ,r,r 105, 126. Further, the Examiner finds that Leontaris teaches a
"quantization parameter ... based upon ... [an] offset." Ans. 15 ( citing
Leontaris ,r 204 ("the derivation of the new [ quantization parameter] ... can
be offset.")); Final Act. 4. Still further, the Examiner finds that Sato '636
teaches "determining the chroma quantization parameter based upon a luma
quantization parameter." Ans. 15 ( citing Sato '63 6 Abstract ( disclosing that
"dequantization is performed on each chroma and luma component of the
4
Appeal2018-006835
Application 13/930,089
quantized coefficients using quantization step sizes")); Final Act. 4; see Sato
'636, claims 1--4.
Although the Examiner finds that the references teach each individual
component recited in the claims, i.e., "a chroma-low-fidelity flag," "a
quantization parameter for the chroma video component," "a luma
quantization parameter," and "a low-fidelity-mode offset," the Examiner
does not explain sufficiently how the combination of those components
interoperate to decode video in the selected manners recited by the claims.
See Ans. 15-16; see also Final Act. 3--4. Nor does the Examiner explain
sufficiently how the combination teaches choosing different manners of
video decoding, as required in the claims. See Ans. 15-16; see also Final
Act. 3--4. That is, the simple existence of the claimed components does not,
by itself, explain why it would have been obvious to arrange those
components to (a) "determin[ e] a chroma quantization parameter for the
chroma video component based upon a luma quantization parameter and a
low-fidelity-mode offset" based on the low-fidelity flag being set or (b)
"determin[ e] the chroma quantization parameter for the chroma video
component based upon the luma quantization parameter without using the
low-fidelity-mode offset" based on the low-fidelity flag being not set.
Nor does the Examiner's stated motivation to combine the references
serve to explain how the combination of the components disclosed by those
references teaches the claimed invention or otherwise renders the claimed
invention obvious. See App. Br. 15-16; see also Final Act. 4. In particular,
the Examiner states that Sato '636 is combined with Lin and Leontaris "in
order to provide a technique of preventing a spurious contour line from
being created in an image including a part with gradually varying pixel
5
Appeal2018-006835
Application 13/930,089
values and perform high efficient compression at low bit rates." App.
Br. 15-16 (citing Sato '636, Abst., 7:17-21, claims 1--4). But the
Examiner's reason to combine, reciting an improvement, does not apprise us
of how the combination of references results in the claimed invention.
Furthermore, as Appellant notes (see Reply Br. 2), the Examiner does
not adequately show, and it is not readily apparent, that the Examiner's
stated motivation for the combination is achieved by the Examiner's
combination. In particular, the improvement in Sato '636 cited by the
Examiner refers to the overall improvement to which Sato' s entire disclosure
is directed (see Sato '636, 7: 17-21 ), but the luma quantization parameter the
Examiner relies on is a discrete component of Sato '636. It is not apparent
how the luma quantization parameter by itself provides the overall
improvement the Examiner cites. As such, the Examiner's articulated
reason for the combination is not supported by rational underpinning.
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 12 over
the stated combination of Lin, Leontaris, and Sato '' 63 6. Because we agree
with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach
the merits of Appellant's other arguments (see App. Br. 10-14). Dependent
claims 4--7, 9, 10, 23-25, 27-32, and 35--40 stand with their respective
independent claims. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 1,
4--7, 9-12, 23-25, 27-32, and 35--40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
6
Appeal2018-006835
Application 13/930,089
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4--7, 9--12,
23-25, 27-32, and 35--40.
REVERSED
7