12308791 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016)

Ex Parte Pandit et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 16, 2016

12308791 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/308,791 12/23/2008 24498 7590 02/18/2016 Robert D, Shedd, Patent Operations THOMSON Licensing LLC 4 Research Way 3rd Floor Princeton, NJ 08543 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Purvin Bibhas Pandit 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. PU060135 6620 EXAMINER PYZOCHA, MICHAEL J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2437 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/18/2016 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): uspto@technicolor.com pat. verlangieri@technicolor.com russell. smith@technicolor.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PURVIN BIBHAS PANDIT, YEPING SU, PENG YIN, and CRISTINA GOMILA Appeal2014-004196 Application 12/308,791 Technology Center 2400 Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and KAMRAN JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the non-final rejection of claims 1--44 and 46. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed September 10, 2013, the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed February 6, 2014, and the Non-Final Office Action ("Non-Final Act.") mailed June 28, 2013, and the Answer ("Ans.") mailed January 16, 2014, for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Brief. Appeal2014-004196 Application 12/308,791 Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). INVENTION The invention is directed to multi-view video encoding and decoding. Spec 1. Claim 11 is illustrative and is reproduced below: 1. An apparatus, comprising: an encoder for encoding at least two views corresponding to multi-view video content into a resultant bitstream using a syntax element, wherein the syntax element identifies a particular one of at least two methods that indicate a decoding dependency between at least some of the at least two views. Haskell Martinian Winger REFERENCES us 6,055,012 US 7,903,737 B2 US 2005/0123055 Al REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2 Apr. 25, 2000 Mar. 8, 2011 June 9, 2005 Claims 1, 12, 23, 34, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Haskell and Martinian. Non-Final Act. 3. 1 Further regarding claim 1 ("an encoder for" {performing all claimed functions}), in the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to consider whether the "encoder for" language should be considered as a nonce word for "means for" and whether claim 1 should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, first paragraph, as a single means which is nonenabling for the scope of the claim. See MPEP Â§2164.08(a). 2 Claim 45 was previously cancelled. 2 Appeal2014-004196 Application 12/308,791 Dependent claims 2-11, 13-22, 24--33, and 35--44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Haskell, Martinian, and Winger. Non-Final Act. 5. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Haskell and Martinian teaches or suggests "a decoding dependency between at least some of the at least two views" as recited in claims 1, 12, 23, 34, and 46? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Haskell and Martinian teaches or suggests "wherein the syntax element identifies a particular one of at least two methods that indicate a decoding dependency between at least some of the at least two views" as recited in claims 1, 12, 23, 34, and 46? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Haskell and Martinian teaches or suggests "a syntax element" as recited in claims 1, 12, 23, 34, and 46? ANALYSIS Claims 1, 12, 23, 34, and 46 Claims 1, 12, 23, 34, and 46 recite "a decoding dependency between at least some of the at least two views." The Examiner relies on Martinian col. 9 lines 61---66, col. 20 lines 8- 19, and col. 22 lines 8-19. Non-Final Act. 4. Specifically, the Examiner indicates "view 1" "view3" "the current view" and "neighboring views" are at least two views. Ans. 4. Appellants argue Martinian discloses only one decoding dependency between at least some of the at least two views. App. Br. 12. Appellants 3 Appeal2014-004196 Application 12/308,791 further argue "if only the current view is involved, then that approach clearly is not 'between at least some of the at least two views'" (emphasis omitted). Id. Appellants' argument is unpersuasive. View 1 is different from view3. The current view is necessarily different from the neighboring views. Therefore, there are at least two views. Appellants admit Martinian teaches at least two views in the Reply arguing "different views are indicated for use." Reply Br. 11. For these reasons, we find Martinian teaches "at least two views." Claims 1, 12, 23, 34, and 46 recite "wherein the syntax element identifies a particular one of at least two methods that indicate a decoding dependency between at least some of the at least two views." The Examiner relies on Martinian col. 9 lines 61---66, col. 20 lines 8- 19, and col. 22 lines 8-19. Non-Final Act. 4. Specifically, the Examiner states one method is the "unused for reference" flag being set and the other method is with the "unused for reference" flag not set. Ans. 5---6. The Examiner finds Martinian teaches that when the "unused for reference" flag is set then the frames are skipped in the decoding process. Ans. 6. When the "unused for reference" flag is not set then the frames may be used in the decoding process. Id. Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that "at least two methods that indicate a decoding dependency between at least some of the at least two views" is NOT the same as "two different methods to decode the frames," as disclosed in Martinian. Reply Br. 10 (emphasis ours). Appellants argue Martinian "involves the same method, 4 Appeal2014-004196 Application 12/308,791 where different views are indicated for use but NOT different methods that indicate a decoding dependency between at least some of the at least two views." Reply Br. 11. Appellants argue, Martinian simply discloses a single method of indicating two ways a picture can be used as reference picture, namely as a spatial reference or a temporal reference. Stated another way, indicating whether or not a particular picture is a spatial reference or a temporal reference as disclosed in Martinian involves a single method (of indicating) even if two choices are provided by that single method. App. Br. 13. Neither Appellants nor the Examiner has asserted a lexicographic definition. Therefore, the claim is interpreted according to the plain ordinary meaning in light of the Specification. See MPEP Â§ 2111. 01. First, Appellants point to exemplary methods of decoding involving signaling an immediate parent picture or descendent pictures respectively. App. Br. 13. See also Spec. 10. However, these examples derived from the Specification should not be improperly read into the claims. MPEP Â§ 2111.01. Second, the Specification at page 6 lines 6-9 describes dependency information by stating, "By providing such a flag or other syntax element, an embodiment of the present principles allows a decoder to determine how different pictures in a multi-view video sequence depend on each other." Thus, at least the Examiner's interpretation of the syntax element as a "flag" is consistent with the Specification. See also Spec. 17, line 10. The Examiner has identified two methods including skipping the frame or decoding the frame. Ans. 6. The process involved when the frame is skipped is different from the processes involved when the frame is decoded. Appellant argues "Martinian simply discloses a single method of 5 Appeal2014-004196 Application 12/308,791 indicating two ways a picture can be used as reference picture" (App. Br. 13); however, "way" is a synonym for a "method." Furthermore, we agree with examiner that the use of a frame "as a reference picture" is an indication of a decoding dependency and, similarly, that indicating not to use a frame as a reference frame is an indication of a different decoding dependency. Ans. 6. The dependency is either an affirmative or a negative dependence respectively but in both cases the decoding dependency is indicated by the "unused for reference" flag. For these reasons we agree with the Examiner that Martinian teaches "wherein the syntax element identifies a particular one of at least two methods that indicate a decoding dependency between at least some of the at least two views." Claims 1, 12, 23, 34, and 46 recite "a syntax element." Appellants argue, "However, proper claim constructions of Claims 1, 12, 23, 34, and 46 clearly implicate ONLY ONE SYNTAX ELEMENT, and not a combination of syntax elements and other information as proposed by the Examiner." Reply Br. 10. This argument is unpersuasive. Claims 1, 12, 23, 34, and 46 use the transitional phrase "comprising," which leaves the claims open ended. The transitional term "comprising," which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See MPEP Â§ 2111.03 (citing Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Thus claims 1, 12, 23, 34, and 46, by using the open-ended transitional phrase "comprising" specifically 6 Appeal2014-004196 Application 12/308,791 further include additional unrecited elements, including additional syntax elements and other information elements. For the above reasons we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 12, 23, 34, and 46. Claims 2-11, 13-22, 24-33, and 35-44 Appellants argue that dependent claims 2-11, 13-22, 24--33, and 35- 44 are allowable based on their dependency on claims 1, 12, 23, 34, and 46 at least for the same reasons as set forth above. App. Br. 19. For at least the reasons set forth above we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2-11, 13-22, 24--33, and 35--44. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that Martinian teaches or suggests "a decoding dependency between at least some of the at least two views" as recited in claims 1, 12, 23, 34, and 46. The Examiner did not err in finding that Martinian teaches or suggests "wherein the syntax element identifies a particular one of at least two methods that indicate a decoding dependency between at least some of the at least two views" as recited in claims 1, 12, 23, 34, and 46. The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Haskell and Martinian teaches or suggests "a syntax element" as recited in claims 1, 12, 23, 34, and 46. SUMMARY The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 12, 23, 34, and 46 is affirmed. 7 Appeal2014-004196 Application 12/308,791 The Examiner's decision to reject dependent claims 2-11, 13-22, 24- 33, and 35--44 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8