Ex Parte Samuelsson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2018

13641714 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/641,714 10/17/2012 Jonatan Samuelsson
24112 7590 08/22/2018
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
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.
4015-8306 I P34997-US2 8779
EXAMINER
NOH,JAENAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/22/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONATAN SAMUELSSON and RICKARD SJOBERG
Appeal2017-009758
Application 13/641,714 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN J. JEFFERY, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 15, 17-22, and 24--28, which constitute the only
claims pending. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson
(publ). App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-009758
Application 13/641, 714
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to managing video transmission of clean random
access (CRA) pictures. Abstract; Spec. 1:7-2:31. Claim 15, reproduced
below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added):
15. A method of encoding pictures of a video stream, the method
compnsmg:
assigning a layer identifier, using a processor of an encoder, to
pictures encoded as Clean Random Access (CRA) pictures, the CRA
pictures being self-contained and identifiable as a type of random
access point pictures for which all coded pictures that follow that type
of random access point picture both in decoding order and output
order are not allowed to use inter prediction from any picture
that precedes the random access point picture of said type; and
setting, using the processor, the layer identifier to a lowest
layer identity to enable a decoder to determine the validity of the
video stream.
App.Br. 9 (Claims Appendix).
THE REJECTION
Claims 15, 17-22, and 24--28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2012/0230401 Al; pub.
September 13, 2012) ("Chen 1") in view of Chen et al. (US 2012/0023249
Al; pub. January 26, 2012) ("Chen 2"). Final Act. 7-16.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding the combination of
Chen 1 and Chen 2 teaches the claim limitations of independent claims 15
and 22. App. Br. 2-7; Reply Br. 2-9.
According to Appellants, "[ n ]either Chen 1 nor Chen 2 provides any
teachings about the setting of an assigned layer ID to a particular value to
achieve a particular result." App. Br. 4. Appellants argue the Examiner's
finding, that Chen 2 discloses the general idea of assigning a layer ID could
2
Appeal2017-009758
Application 13/641, 714
be applied to Chen 1 such that the CRA picture of Chen 1 would be assigned
a layer ID, is conclusory. Id. According to Appellants:
The general idea of assigning some layer ID to CRA pictures
does not teach or suggest the intentional act of setting an assigned layer
ID a particular way, i.e., to a lowest layer identity. Simply because
layers are assumed to have layer IDs, and simply because CRA pictures
are assumed to be assigned some kind of layer ID, does not mean the
cited art obviously teaches or suggests that an assigned layer ID should,
could, or even would be intentionally set to some particular layer ID,
such as the claimed lowest layer identity. In other words, the
happenstance occurrence of a CRA picture ending up with a particular
layer ID, e.g., the lowest layer ID, cannot be construed as equivalent to
or an obvious showing of the intentional act of the setting of a layer
identifier assigned to CRA pictures to a lowest layer identity to enable
a decoder to determine the validity of the video stream, as recited in the
independent claims.
Such happenstance occurrences does not render the claimed
assignment obvious because a happenstance occurrence does not
provide the claimed assignment (i.e., to the lowest layer identity) for all
of the claimed pictures (i.e., the CRA pictures defined in the claims),
and thus does not address or solve the problem addressed and solved by
the claimed solution.
Id. at 4--5.
Appellants further argue Chen 1 and Chen 2 do not consider or
attempt to solve the encoding problem addressed by the pending claims and,
therefore,
there is no basis for the Examiner's position that the layer ID
teachings of Chen 1 and/ or Chen 2 necessarily include the idea
of setting an assigned layer ID for specifically encoded pictures
(CRA pictures) to a specific value (a lowest layer identity) for a
specific reason (to enable a decoder to determine the validity of
the video stream).
Id. at 5.
Appellants argue Chen 2 teaching of a base layer does not teach the
claimed setting of an assigned layer ID because
3
Appeal2017-009758
Application 13/641, 714
[ e ]ven if arguendo the cited art does teach the existence of
reference pictures in a base layer, the existence of such pictures
in such a layer is not the same as the actual assignment of a
particular picture to a particular layer, where the layer identifier
for this particular layer is set as claimed.
Id. at 5---6. According to Appellants, "neither Chen 1 nor Chen 2 even
mentions the actual assignment of any pictures, much less 'reference
pictures,' to a base layer." Id. at 6.
Appellants further argue the Specification refutes the Examiner's
basis for rejection that "reference pictures (CRA/ODR being a type of
reference picture) are normally assigned to a base layer (lowest layer) as
well known in the art and as taught by Chen 2." Id. at 6-7 (citing Final Act.
3). In particular, Appellants argue the Specification "discusses what
happens when a CRA picture is not assigned to a base layer, and thus has a
temporal ID that exceeds that of a picture being encoded." Id. at 7 (citing
Spec. 6:23-23). Appellants then argue, because the Examiner errs in the
"normal assignment of reference pictures to a base layer," the Examiner's
finding that it would be obvious to combine Chen 2 with Chen 1 to achieve
the claimed setting of the assigned layer ID is not based on legally sufficient
reasoning. Id.
The Examiner finds the combination of Chen 1 and Chen 2 teaches
the independent claim 15 limitations, relies on Chen 2 for teaching the
limitation "setting, using the processor, the layer identifier to a lowest layer
identity to enable a decoder to determine the validity of the video stream,"
and provides a basis for the combination of Chen 1 and Chen 2. Final Act.
7-10; Ans. 2-5 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds assigning layer ID's
for pictures in a multi-layered coding scheme was well known and would
have been applicable to the combination of Chen 1 and Chen 2, particularly
4
Appeal2017-009758
Application 13/641, 714
in view of the Chen 2 teaching of disclosing pictures in various layers,
including the base layer, having layer IDs. Ans. 11-12. The Examiner finds
Chen 2 teaches assigning a reference picture (CRA/ODR) to the base layer
(lowest level) was well known in the art. Id. The Examiner finds Chen 2
additionally teaches the reference pictures have layer ID's and "[t]he
disclosed 'temporal_id element' in Chen 2 is a general description of
existence of layer IDs for pictures in different layers." Id. at 13 (citing Chen
2 if 74).
Regarding the limitation "to enable a decoder to determine the
validity of the video stream," the Examiner finds Chen 2 teaches this
limitation. Final Act. 9-10 (citing Chen 2 ,r,r 45, 74, 98) (emphasis added).
Regarding the relevance of the Specification argued by Appellants,
the Examiner reasons, because the combination of Chen 1 and Chen 2
teaches the claim 15 limitations, the Specification portion cited by
Appellants is irrelevant. Ans. 14--15. Regarding Appellants' argument that
"happenstance occurrence is not the same as intentional actions," the
Examiner finds the combination of Chen 1 and Chen 2 teaches the claim 15
limitations. Final Act. 3.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue the Examiner fails to consider the
limitations of the claims as a whole as the claims "do not only recite setting
the assigned layer ID (for CRA pictures) to a lowest layer identity, but rather
recite setting the assigned layer ID (for CRA pictures) to a lowest layer
identity to enable the decoder to determine the validity of the video stream."
Reply Br. 2. According to Appellants,
the happenstance occurrence of a reference picture ending up in
a particular layer, e.g., the base layer, cannot be construed as
equivalent to or an obvious showing of the intentional act of
5
Appeal2017-009758
Application 13/641, 714
setting a layer identifier assigned to particular pictures (i.e., CRA
pictures) to the a particular layer identity (i.e., the lowest layer
identity) to achieve a particular result (i.e., to enable a decoder to
determine the validity of the video stream), as recited in the
independent claims.
Id. at 2-3. And Appellants argue the prior art happenstance occurrence does
not address or solve the problem addressed and solved by the claimed
solution. Id. at 3. Appellants argue the Examiner's findings in the Answer
are conclusory as to how layer ID's are assigned. Id. at 3-5.
Appellants argue the references individually while the rejection is
based on the combination of the teachings of Chen 1 and Chen 2. In re
Keller, 642 F.2d413, 426 (CCPA 1981) ("[O]ne cannot shownon-
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references." (citations omitted)); In
re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants argue an unreasonably narrow teaching of the cited
references and an overly demanding standard of obviousness.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
As stated by the Supreme Court, the Examiner's obviousness rejection
must be based on:
"[S]ome articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning
to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." ... [H]owever,
the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
6
Appeal2017-009758
Application 13/641, 714
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977,988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The Examiner's findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan
would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of
a puzzle" since the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21.
Based upon the teachings of the references and the fact that each
claimed element was well-known in the art, we agree with the Examiner the
combination of familiar elements according to known methods would have
been obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR, 550
U.S. at 415-16.
On this record, Appellants do not present sufficient or persuasive
evidence that the combination of the cited references was "uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an
unobvious step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 419-21).
Nor have Appellants provided objective evidence of secondary
considerations, which our reviewing court guides "operates as a beneficial
check on hindsight." Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese & Powder Sys.,
Inc., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner's findings and conclusions that the combination of Chen
1 and Chen 2 teaches the limitations of claim 15. Regarding Appellants'
assertion of a required "intentional act," the Examiner provides adequate
7
Appeal2017-009758
Application 13/641, 714
evidence to support the findings and conclusions and, additionally, we note
claim 15 does not recite the term "intentional."
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of independent claim
15, and independent claim 22 which is argued together with claim 15. We
also sustain the rejection of claims 17-21 and 24--28 as these claims are not
argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 15, 17-22, and
24--28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8