Ex Parte Pandit et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 14, 2016

12311174 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/311, 174 0312012009
24498 7590 09/16/2016
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.
PU060198 3361
EXAMINER
GER OLEO, FRANCIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2016 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, and PENG YIN
Appeal2014-009596
Application 12/311, 17 4
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 10, 11, 13, and 18. Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Claims 1, 10, 11, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Vetro (US 2010/0322311 Al; Dec. 23, 2010) and Kadono (US
2005/0031030 Al; Feb. 10, 2005). Ans. 2--4.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Vetro, Kadono, and Su (Anthony Vetro, Yeping Su, Hideaki Kimata, and
Aljoscha Smolic, Joint Multiview Video Model (JMVM) 1.0, Joint Video
Team (JVT) ofISO/IEC MPEG & ITU-T VCEG (ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/
Appeal2014-009596
Application 12/311, 17 4
WGI 1 and ITU-T SG16 Q.6) 20th Meeting: Klagenfurt, Austria, (July 15-
21, 2006). Ans. 5.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Vetro,
Kadono, and Wenger (S. Wenger, M. M. Hannuksela, T. Stockhammer, M.
Westerlund, and D. Singer, RTP Payload Format for H264 Video, RFC
3984, February 2005). Ans. 6.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "memory management for a memory
used for storing reference pictures associated with a Multiview coded video
picture system." Abstract. Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below:
1. A method for coding video data corresponding to a sequence of
moving pictures comprising the steps of:
encoding video information corresponding to a video picture, wherein
said video picture corresponds to a first view of a multiview and said
encoding step uses reference pictures associated with a second view of a
multiview and reference pictures associated with a third view of a multi view
such that the first, second, and third views are different;
generating information specifying said second and third views such
that all of the stored reference pictures of a second view of a multi view in a
buffer and all of the stored pictures of the third view in the buffer are to be
deleted at the same time while retaining the encoded video information of
the first view in the buffer.
2
Appeal2014-009596
Application 12/311, 17 4
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 10, 11, 13, AND 18 OVER VETRO
ANDKADONO
The Examiner finds Vetro and Kadono teach all limitation of claim 1.
Ans. 2--4.
The Examiner finds:
V etro further discloses generating information specifying
all frames from the same view, which are not !DR-frames
[instantaneous coding refresh frames] or V-frames and which
precede the V-frame in output order, as unused for reference
(Vetro: i-f0162-i-f0168). For instance, V-frames inserted in the
second and third rows of fig. 19 indicate that all frames preceding
them are unused (after these V-frames are decoded). Vetro
discloses view dependency supplemental enhancement
information (SEI) that locates and specifies V-frames to facilitate
random access.
Additionally, Vetro discloses an instant in which multiple
V-frames may exist at the same time instance (V etro: i-f O 144).
Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made, would understand that should two V-frames
exist in the same time instance (i.e. a V-frame in second and third
multiview (e.g. see V-frames on the second and third rows of fig.
19)), stored reference pictures belonging to a second and third
multiview would be removed and the reference pictures
belonging to a first multi view would remain (e.g. see first row of
fig. 19 or see 4rth row of fig. 19 if it had no V-frame).
Ans. 3; see also Final Act. 2 ("Vetro already discloses specifying said
second and third views (e.g. V-frames are inserted in the second, third rows
of fig. 19)."); see also previous Final Action 1 4 ("should two V-frames exist
1 This appeal was taken from the Final Action mailed October 2, 2013
("Final Act."). The previous Final Action referred to here was mailed on
May 10, 2012. The Final Action mailed October 2, 2013 indicates that
3
Appeal2014-009596
Application 12/311, 17 4
in the same time instance (i.e. a V-frame in second and third multiview),
stored reference pictures belonging to a second and third Multiview would
be removed and the reference pictures belonging to a first multiview would
remain.").
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
1. "[T]here is absolutely no disclosure or suggestion that the 'view
dependency SEI message' of Vetro in any way 'specifies which views are to
be deleted', as alleged by the Examiner." App. Br. 6.
11. "Kadono, fails to cure the aforementioned deficiencies of
Vetro." App. Br. 6.
We do not see any error in the Examiner's findings. Nor do we see
any error in the Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding Appellants' argument (i), we find this argument unavailing
because we agree with the Examiner's finding that Vetro's V-frames
inserted in the second and third rows of Vetro (Vetro Fig. 19) teach the
recited (claim 1) "generating information specifying said second and third
views such that all of the stored reference pictures of a second view of a
multi view in a buffer and all of the stored pictures of the third view in the
buffer are to be deleted" because these two V-frames indicate that all frames
preceding them are unused. See Ans. 3; see also Final Act. 2; see also
previous Final Action 4; see also Vetro i-f 144 ("FIG. 19 shows the use of!-
frames for the initial view and the use of V-frames for subsequent views at
the same time instant 1900."); see also Vetro i-fl62 ("When a V-frame is
decoded or displayed, the V-frame also causes the decoding process to mark
claims 1, 10, 11, 13, and 18 are rejected "for the same reasons as set forth in
Section 5 of the last office action, dated 5/10/12." Final Act. 2.
4
Appeal2014-009596
Application 12/311, 17 4
all frames from the same view, which are not !DR-frames or V-frames and
which precede the V-frame in output order, to be marked as unused for
reference."); see also Vetro i-f 167 ("For the view dependency SEI message
to be useful for random access purposes, the view dependency SEI message
is associated with each independently encoded frame, i.e., an !DR-frame,
and each frame is encoded using only spatial reference pictures, i.e., V-
frames. "). We adopt the Examiner's finding as our own.
Put another way, Vetro's V-frames inserted in the second and third
rows of Vetro, Fig. 19 specify which views (the second and third views) are
to be deleted. With regard to the SEI message, the SEI message may specify
the V-frames. See Vetro i-f 167 and Figure 19; see also Ans. 9 (annotated Fig.
19 showing stored reference pictures of several views being deleted).
Regarding Appellants' argument (ii), we also find this argument
unavailing because Vetro is not deficient for reasons discussed above.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 10, 11, 13, and 18, which are not separately argued with particularity.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 3 AND 4 OVER VETRO, KADONO,
AND SU
Appellants argue "Su is unable to cure the deficiencies of Vetro and
Kadono." App. Br. 7.
V etro and Kadano are not deficient for reasons discussed above when
addressing claim 1.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3 and 4.
5
Appeal2014-009596
Application 12/311, 17 4
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 5 OVER VETRO, KADONO, AND
WENGER
Appellants argue "Wenger is unable to cure the deficiencies of Vetro
and Kadono." App. Br. 7.
V etro and Kadano are not deficient for reasons discussed above when
addressing claim 1.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 5.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 10, 11, 13, and 18 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
6