Ex Parte Shi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

11620022 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111620,022 01/04/2007
23696 7590 08/02/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Fang Shi
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.
060955 8536
EXAMINER
WERNER, DAVID N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2016 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FANG SHI, VIJA Y ALAKSHMI R. RA VEENDRAN,
andMINDAI 1
Appeal 2015-001635
Application 11/620,022
Technology Center 2400
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision2 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-52, which are all the pending claims. Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Qualcomm
Incorporated. App. Br. 3.
2 Our decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed December 20, 2013
("Final Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed June 16, 2014 ("App. Br.");
the Examiner's Answer mailed September 25, 2014 ("Ans."); the
Appellants' Reply Brief filed November 24, 2014 ("Reply Br."); and the
Specification filed January 4, 2007 ("Spec.").
Appeal 2015-001635
Application 11/620,022
THE CLAHvIED INVENTION
According to the Specification, "[ t ]his disclosure relates to digital
video encoding and decoding and, more particularly, techniques for
interpolation of video frames." Spec. i-f 2. Independent claim 1 is directed to
a method, independent claims 16 and 31 are directed to apparatus,
independent claim 46 is directed to a processor, and independent claim 47 is
directed to a computer-program product. App. Br. 18, 21, 23, 26-27
(Claims Appendix). Claim 1 recites:
A method for processing digital video data, the method
compnsmg:
analyzing information associated with at least one video
frame, wherein the analysis comprises analyzing coding
complexity associated with the at least one video frame, and
wherein analyzing coding complexity comprises analyzing one
or more coding coefficients associated with the at least one video
frame; and
dynamically adjusting a frame interpolation operation
based on the analysis of the information, wherein the frame
interpoiation operation interpoiates at ieast a portion of an
interpolated frame that is not included in a bitstream containing
the at least one video frame.
App. Br. 18.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1-5, 7, 13, 16-20, 22, 28, 31-35, 37, 43, and 48-52 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee et al.,
Adaptive Motion-Compensated Interpolation for Frame Rate Up-
Conversion, IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, Vol. 48, No. 3,
444--50 (August, 2002) ("Lee") and Kim et al. (US 5,552,829, issued Sept.
3, 1996) ("Kim"). Final Act. 4--9.
2
Appeal 2015-001635
Application 11/620,022
Claims 6, 14, 15, 21, 29, 30, 36, 44, and 45 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee, Kim, and Chen, Adaptive
Temporal Interpolation Using Bidirectional Motion Estimation and
Compensation, Proceedings of 2002 IEEE International Conference on
Image Processing (IEEE ICIP 2002), Vol. 2, 313-316 (Sept., 2002)
("Chen"). Final Act. 9-11.
Claims 8-12, 23-27, 38--42, 46, and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee, Kim, Chen, and Demos (US
2004/0005004 Al, published Jan. 8, 2004) ("Demos"). Final Act. 11-14.
GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Appellants rely on the arguments presented as to claim 1 for
independent claims 16, 31, 46, and 47 and dependent claims 2, 5-15, 17, 20-
30, 32, and 35--45. App. Br. 13, 16-17; Reply Br. 2, 8-9. Accordingly, we
decide this appeal as to claims 1, 2, 5-17, 20-32, and 35--47 based on our
consideration of representative claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants' present additional arguments for three groups of
dependent claims: (1) claims 3, 18, and 33; (2) claims 4, 19, and 34; and (3)
claims 48-52. App. Br. 13-16; Reply Br. 9-12. Accordingly, we consider
these three groups of claims separately.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejection of claim 1-52 in light of Appellants'
arguments. In reaching this decision, we have considered all evidence cited
by Appellants and all arguments made by Appellants. We are not persuaded
that Appellants identify reversible error. We agree with and adopt the
3
Appeal 2015-001635
Application 11/620,022
Examiner's findings, reasoning, and conclusions as set forth in the Final
Office Action (Final Act. 2-14) and the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-21).
We highlight the following for emphasis.
Claims 1, 2, 5--17, 20--32, and 35--47
Appellants fail to squarely address, and thus fail to persuasively rebut,
the Examiner's position that all the elements of claim 1 are taught or
suggested by the cited combination of references, Lee and Kim. App. Br. 8-
13; Reply Br. 2-9. Rather, Appellants argue Lee and Kim relate to
completely different processes (video decoding vs. video encoding) and the
teachings of these references should not be combined because they are not
analogous arts. Id. Art is analogous when it is: (1) from the same field of
endeavor as the claimed invention; or (2) reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem faced by the inventor, if the art is not from the same field
of endeavor. In re Bigio, 381F.3d1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Specifically, Appellants argue: (1) Kim is not from the same field of
endeavor because Lee and the claimed invention relate to video decoding
and Kim relates to video encoding (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4); and (2) "[t]he
encoding processes disclosed in Kim are wholly unrelated to the claimed
frame interpolation techniques, e.g., as may be performed by a video
decoder" (Reply Br. 3 (emphasis added)). With regard to this argument, the
Examiner's Answer states:
Applicant alleges that Kim, directed to a quantization process,
addresses a different problem than Lee and the claimed
invention, both directed to frame interpolation. However, first,
Appellant errs by alleging that Kim is directed to quantization
exclusively. In Kim, activity calculation portion 40 is shown in
Fig. 9 as outputting not only to quantizer 50, but also to
4
Appeal 2015-001635
Application 11/620,022
adaptive scanning portion 60. The Kim activity calculation is
used not only for quantization, but also a coding area to
determine the best scanning order for block coefficients to
produce the most effective entropy coding. See Kim at col. 5,
lines 47---63 (function of adaptive scanning portion 60); col. 7:
lines 29--36 (multiple purposes of considering complexity as
determining quantization step size and reducing redundant data
by deciding coding area). Additionally, even if neither optimal
step size nor coding area solve the same problem as the claimed
application of optional frame interpolation, this is irrelevant to
whether Kim is analogous art, since each of Lee, Kim and the
claimed invention are all directed to the same field of endeavor
of adaptive processing and encoding of video data.
Ans. 13-14. We adopt the Examiner's analysis and agree with the Examiner
that Lee, Kim, and the claimed invention are analogous art. As noted above,
according to the Specification, "[t]his disclosure relates to digital video
encoding and decoding and, more particularly, techniques for interpolation
of video frames." Spec. i-f 2 (emphasis added). We also note the preamble
of claim 1 recites, "[a] method for processing digital video data." App. Br.
18. Kim and Lee clearly relate to the processing of digital video data. See
Kim, Abstract ("An image signal coding system encodes analog image
signals into digital signals in a high-definition digital video tape recorder (D-
VTR). ") Appellants' argument is based upon an overly narrow view of the
analogous art.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2,
5-17, 20-32, and 35--47, which were not separately argued.
Claims 3, 18, and 33
Claim 3 recites, "[ t ]he method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating a frame information table (FIT) that includes information for a
5
Appeal 2015-001635
Application 11/620,022
plurality of video frames, wherein the analysis comprises analyzing the FIT
table associated with the plurality of video frames." App. Br. 18.
"Dependent claims 18 and 3 3 recite similar features of the apparatuses
recited in independent claims 16 and 31, respectively." App. Br. 13-14, 21,
24.
Appellants argue, "Lee does not disclose organizing information for a
plurality of frames" because "Lee describes a scene as relating to a single
frame." App. Br. 14. The Examiner responds:
Appellant [sic] alleges that it was improper to map a field
of motion vectors in a scene in Lee to the claimed table "that
includes information for a plurality of video frames," since in
Lee, a scene is described as "relating to a single frame."
However, motion vectors by definition include information for
a plurality of video frames - a motion vector is described in
§4.2.3 ofITU-T recommendation H.263, presented in the
record of the present application, as having components that are
predictions from a referenced picture to the coded picture that
contains the motion vector. The coded picture that contains a
motion vector and the at ieast one reference picture from which
the motion vector are predicted "includes information" for these
at least two frames inherently.
Ans. 18. We agree with the Examiner. We also agree with the Examiner
that organizing information into a table does not provide a functional
distinction. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument and sustain the
rejection of claims 3, 18, and 33 as obvious.
Claims 4, 19, and 34
Claim 4 recites, "[ t ]he method of claim 1, wherein the dynamic
adjustment comprises selecting whether to enable or disable motion
compensated video frame interpolation." App. Br. 18. "Dependent claims
6
Appeal 2015-001635
Application 11/620,022
19 and 34 recite similar features of the apparatuses recited in independent
claims 16 and 31, respectively." App. Br. 15, 21, 24. Appellants argue the
cited references fail to teach or suggest whether or not to enable or disable
motion compensated video frame interpolation ("MCI"). App. Br. 15; Reply
Br. 10. The Examiner relies on Figure 2 of Lee as illustrating the elements
of claims 4, 19, and 34. Ans. 19. Figure 2 of Lee is reproduced below.
tempolaI J inear
inte?polation
MCI
frame nnd block
·- motion types
ru:cwacy of
_ 6 .,•;1' motion vector
mixing temporal linear
interpolation si.nd MCJ
Figure 2 of Lee depicts, "[a]daptive compensation based on motion
classification." Lee 446. The Examiner states:
The first step of this motion classification is to determine if
there is motion or zero motion based on motion estimation. If
"the estimated motion vector is zero" (§ 2.3), MCI is not used,
only temporal linear interpolation. Choosing whether to use
MCI if global or local motion is detected from estimated
motion vectors, or to use temporal linear interpolation and not
MCI if zero motion is detected from estimated motion vectors,
is a claimed "selecting whether to enable or disable" MCI.
7
Appeal 2015-001635
Application 11/620,022
Ans. 20. Lee supports the findings of the Examiner and we agree with the
Examiner's reasoning and obviousness conclusion. We sustain the rejection
of claims 4, 19, and 34.
Claims 48--52
Claim 48 recites, "[t ]he method of claim 1, wherein analyzing one or
more coding coefficients associated with the video frame comprises
determining a number of non-zero coding coefficients associated with the
video frame." App. Br. 27. "Dependent claims 49--52 recite similar features
of the respective independent apparatuses." App. Br. 15, 27. Appellants
argue the cited combination of references fails to teach or suggest
determining a number of non-zero coding coefficients. App. Br. 15-16;
Reply Br. 11-12. The Examiner relies on Figures 7 and 12 and column 7,
lines 23-28 and 37--44, of Kim. Ans. 20-21. Figure 12B of Kim is
reproduced below.
1 2
1 3
2 5
4 8
7 10
FIG. j2B
3 4 5 6
5 11 15
9 13 18
12 16 19
14 17 20
8
7 B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Appeal 2015-001635
Application 11/620,022
Figure 12B of Kim depicts an adaptive scanning method for a video frame.
Kim 7:37-38. The Examiner's Answer states:
In the Fig. 12B example, a 5x4 coding area out of 64
coefficients is coded, with each of the 20 coded coefficients
labeled 1 to 20 in a scanning order. Kim at col. 7: lines 37--44.
The coefficients that are outside the coding area are zero
coefficients, detected from the projection sums, and all non-
zero coefficients are inside the coding area. Id. at col. 7: lines
23-28. In the Fig. 12B example, there are at least 44 zero
coefficients outside the coding area, and no more than 20 non-
zero coefficients inside the coding area. Determining that there
are no more than 20 non-zero coefficients is a claimed
"determining a number of non-zero coefficients associated with
the video frame."
Ans. 20-21. The Examiner's findings are supported by Kim and we agree
with the Examiner's reasoning and obviousness conclusion. We sustain the
rejection of claims 48-52.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-52 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9