Ex Parte Tourapis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2017

14255609 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/255,609 04/17/2014 Alexandros Tourapis 082438.028458 1101
139020 7590 06/02/2017
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP / Apple Inc.
WASHINGTON SQUARE, SUITE 1100
1050 CONNECTICUT AVE. N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20036-5304
EXAMINER
TORRENTE, RICHARD T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2017 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):
eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDROS TOURAPIS
Appeal 2017-003590
Application 14/255,609
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 2—15, 18, and 19, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2017-003590
Application 14/255,609
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to “methods for quantization and
adaptive dynamic range signaling in Sample Adaptive Offset (SAO)
processes in video coding and processing systems such as within the High
Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) standard” (Spec. 12).
Independent claim 2, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
2. A decoding method, comprising:
extracting parameters, from a picture parameter dataset in
a coded video stream, for derivation of sample adaptive offset
(SAO) offset values for coded luma data and for derivation of
SAO offset values for coded chroma data,
deriving a first SAO offset value by shifting a default SAO
offset value by an amount specified in a picture parameter dataset
field for coded luma data,
performing SAO filtering on reconstructed luma data
obtained from the coded video stream using the derived first
SAO offset value as an input identifying an offset in the SAO
filtering operation,
deriving a second SAO offset value by shifting the default
SAO offset value by an amount specified in a picture parameter
dataset field for coded chroma data, and
performing SAO filtering on reconstructed chroma data
obtained from the coded video stream using the derived second
SAO offset value as an input identifying an offset in the SAO
filtering operation.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 2—4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18,
and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Kim (Woo-
Shik Kim, Joel Sole, and Marta Karczewicz, “AhG5: Offset Scaling in SAO
for High Bit-depth Video Coding,” Joint Collaborative Team on Video
2
Appeal 2017-003590
Application 14/255,609
Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11,
Input Document to JCT-VC, 1—10, (April 18—26, 2013)) and Hsiang (US
2014/0348222 Al; published Nov. 27, 2014).
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 5, 7, 10, and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Kim, Hsiang, and Yamazaki
(WO 2012/176910 Al; published Dec. 27, 2012).1
ANALYSIS
With respect to claim 2, Appellant contends the combination of Kim
and Hsiang does not teach or suggest “extracting parameters, from a picture
parameter dataset in a coded video stream, for derivation of sample
adaptive offset (SAO) offset values for coded luma data and for derivation
of SAO offset values for coded chroma data,” “deriving a first SAO offset
value by shifting a default SAO offset value by an amount specified in a
picture parameter dataset field for coded luma data,” and “deriving a
second SAO offset value by shifting the default SAO offset value by an
amount specified in a picture parameter dataset field for coded chroma
data” (App. Br. 5—6; Reply Br. 2—3). Particularly, Appellant asserts Kim
obtains “all SAO data . . . either from the image data’s bit depth ... or from
parameters included in a slice header," not from a picture parameter dataset
(App. Br. 5—6 (emphasis added)); and Hsiang “describes signaling a syntax
flag in PPS [picture parameter dataset] that selectively enables or disables
SAO parameter prediction or re-use,” but the “syntax flag is not an
operational parameter used in SAO filtering” (Reply Br. 3). Appellant
1 The Examiner cites to Yamazaki’s US equivalent (US 2014/0140416 Al;
published May 22, 2014) (Final Act. 5).
3
Appeal 2017-003590
Application 14/255,609
further argues the Examiner’s rejection “does not demonstrate any
motivation to alter Kim’s operation” to encode SAO shift parameters in a
picture parameter dataset as claimed—which “achieve[s] more efficient
coding than the techniques provided by Kim or Hsiang” (App. Br. 6; Reply
Br. 4). Appellant submits similar arguments for the “sequence parameter
dataset” limitations recited in independent claim 14 (App. Br. 7; Reply Br.
4). We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own.
Particularly, we agree with the Examiner Kim encodes parameters for
derivation of SAO offset values for coded luma and chroma data in the slice
header (Final Act. 2—3, 6 (citing Kim §§ 2, 2.1); Ans. 8—9). We further
agree the skilled artisan would consider the picture parameter dataset
(recited in claim 2) and sequence parameter dataset (recited in claim 14) to
be interchangeable with Kim’s slice header as well-known coding structures
used to signal parameters for video coding and decoding (Final Act. 6—7
(citing Hsiang || 20, 52; Kim § 2); Ans. 8—9). Appellant’s Specification
further confirms the interchangeability of the slice header, picture parameter
dataset (PPS), and sequence parameter dataset (SPS) for signaling video
coding parameters (see Spec. Tflf 40, 105).2
2 Appellant’s Specification provides that “parameter SaoOffset may be
signaled in the picture parameter set (PPS),” or “the parameter may be
expressly signaled in the sequence parameter set (SPS), slice header, or
other metadata associated with the encoded video data” (Spec. 140
(emphases added)). Additionally, “[t]he determination, type of color space
and/or sampling format conversion may be signaled or identified within a set
of encoded data and, in some instances, may be included in a sequence
parameter set (SPS), picture parameter set (PPS), slice header, or the SAO
4
Appeal 2017-003590
Application 14/255,609
Because the slice header, PPS, and SPS are interchangeable and well-
known coding structures to signal parameters for video coding/decoding, we
agree with the Examiner a modification of Kim’s slice header with SAO
encoding to further encode SAO parameters in PPS and SPS would have
been obvious to those skilled in the art as a use of a known technique to
improve SAO filtering for predictable results (Ans. 8—9). See KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“[A] combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.”). Thus, we are not persuaded that
the Examiner failed to articulate sufficient reasoning with rational
underpinning to modify Kim to encode SAO shift parameters in, and extract
them from PPS (picture parameter dataset, as recited in claim 2) or SPS
(sequence parameter dataset, as recited in claim 14), in addition to the slice
header (see Ans. 8—9).
Appellant further argues the claimed method is more efficient than
Kim’s coding technique because “Kim’s scaling parameters are provided
multiple times per frame” and “more frequently at much lower granularities”
than in Appellant’s method where “shift values are transmitted once per
picture (since the picture parameter data set is a syntax unit that corresponds
to picture-level granularity)” (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 4). Appellant’s
arguments, however, are not supported by persuasive evidence that Kim
encodes scaling/shift parameters more than once per picture and in “several
slices . . . provided in a single frame,” as Appellant advocates (App. Br. 6;
Reply Br. 4). Additionally, Appellant has not shown that improved
syntax. In other instances this information may be part of other metadata or
may be signaled elsewhere” (Spec. 1105 (emphases added)).
5
Appeal 2017-003590
Application 14/255,609
efficiency of the claimed method is not a predictable result of using the
known picture parameter dataset (PPS) structure in the HEVC video coding
standard (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 4).
Thus, Appellant has failed to clearly distinguish the claimed invention
over the prior art relied on by the Examiner. We therefore sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 2 and 14, independent claims 8
and 11 argued for substantially the same reasons as claim 2, and dependent
claims 3, 15, 18, and 19 for which no separate arguments are provided (App.
Br. 6, 8).
With respect to dependent claims 4, 6, 9, and 12, Appellant argues
Kim does not teach SAO parameters encoded in a picture parameter dataset,
as recited in these claims (App. Br. 7—8). Appellant further argues “the
‘scale_factor’ in the equation of Kim Sec 2.1 is determined simply as ‘bit-
depth minus 77,’ which is not a special SAO parameter encoded in a picture
parameter dataset’ (App. Br. 8 (emphasis added)). We do not agree, as Kim
additionally discloses “Flexible scaling of offset... a scaling factor, for
luma and chroma separately, which can be included in the slice header” (see
Kim § 2.2 (emphasis added)). Moreover, as discussed supra with respect to
claim 2, we agree with the Examiner Kim’s SAO shift encoding in the slice
header suggests encoding SAO shift parameters in the picture parameter
dataset, as claimed (Final Act. 6—7; Ans. 8—10). Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 6, 9, and 12.
With respect to dependent claims 5, 7, 10, and 13 rejected based on a
combination of Kim, Hsiang, and Yamazaki, Appellant provides
substantially the same arguments as for independent claims 2, 8, and 11, and
dependent claims 4 and 6 (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5). Appellant provides no
6
Appeal 2017-003590
Application 14/255,609
substantive arguments regarding Yamazaki other than to state Yamazaki
does not cure the deficiencies of Hsiang and Kim (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5).
Thus, for the same reasons as claims 2, 4, 6, 8, and 11, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 7, 10, and 13.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2—15, 18, and 19 is
affirmed.
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
7