Ex Parte WangDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 201714043383 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 14/043,383 10/01/2013 Ye-Kui Wang 1212-647US01/130050U2 2425 15150 7590 12/04/2017 Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A. 1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100 Woodbury, MN 55125 EXAMINER JIANG, ZAIHAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/04/2017 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): pairdocketing @ ssiplaw.com ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YE-KUI WANG Appeal 2017-007091 Application No. 14/043,3831 Technology Center 2400 Before MARC S. HOFF, DENISE M. POTHIER, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1-48. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appellant’s invention is a device that generates a file that stores coded samples containing coded pictures of video data. The file includes a sample entry that includes an element indicaings whether all sequence parameter sets (SPSs) have syntax elements that indicate that temporal sub-layer up- 1 The real party in interest is Qualcomm, Incorporated. Appeal 2017-007091 Application No. 14/043,383 switching to any higher temporal sub-layer can be performed at any sample associated with the SPSs. See Abstract. Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal: 1. A method of processing video data, the method comprising determining, based on an element in a sample entry of a file, that, for each respective sequence parameter set (SPS) of a plurality of SPSs that are activated when a stream to which the sample entry applies is decoded, the respective SPS includes a syntax element that indicates that temporal sub-layer up-switching to any higher temporal sub-layer can be performed at any sample associated with the respective SPS, wherein: the file contains the sample entry and separately contains samples that contain coded pictures of the video data, the element in the sample entry is separate from any of the SPSs, and the temporal sub-layer up-switching comprises an action of starting to forward Network Abstraction Layer (NAL) units of a certain temporal sub-layer that have not been forwarded up until that point. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Deshpande US 2014/0092953 A1 Apr. 3, 2014 Chen US 2014/0022343 A1 Jan. 23, 2014 Fenney US 2009/0278715 A1 Nov. 12, 2009 Claims 1-4, 6, 12-14, 16, 22-25, 27, 33-35, 37, and 43-48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Deshpande. Claims 5, 7-9, 11, 15, 17-19, 21, 26, 28-30, 32, 36, 38-40, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Deshpande and Chen. 2 Appeal 2017-007091 Application No. 14/043,383 Claims 10, 20, 31, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Deshpande, Chen, and Fenney. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed [date]), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed [date]), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed [date]) for their respective details. ISSUE Does Deshpande disclose a sequence parameter set (SPS) that is activated when a stream to which the sample entry applies is decoded, and which includes a syntax element that indicates that temporal sub-layer up- switching to any higher temporal sub-layer can be performed at any sample associated with the SPS? ANALYSIS Claims 1-4, 6,12,13,14,16,22-25,27,33-35,37, and 43-48 Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, “a plurality of SPSs [sequence parameter sets] that are activated when a stream to which the sample entry applies is decoded,” and that for each, “the respective SPS includes a syntax element that indicates that temporal sub-layer up-switching to any higher temporal sub-layer can be performed at any sample associated with the respective SPS.” The remaining independent claims (12, 22, 33, 43, 44, 45, and 46) also recite such limitations. The Examiner finds that the “next_stsa_upswitching_distance” element in Listing 3 of Deshpande corresponds to the “syntax element” recited in the independent claims. Ans. 4; Deshpande p. 6,177. Listing 3 of Deshpande indicates that next_stsa_upswitching^di stance is in a “TemporalLayerEntryO” class. Deshpande, p. 6,176. 3 Appeal 2017-007091 Application No. 14/043,383 Appellant argues that said TemporalLayerEntry() class does not correspond to a sequence parameter set (SPS), as is claimed. App. Br. 12. Appellant contends that nothing in Deshpande discloses or suggests that its TemporalLayerEntry() class is activated when a stream to which the sample entry applies is decoded. Id. Appellant asserts that Deshpande mentions SPSs, but does not disclose or suggest that next_stsa_upswitching_distance is included in any of the SPSs mentioned. Id. The Examiner responds that “Deshpande discloses that ‘the PPS [picture parameter set] may reference a SPS that includes sequence level decoding parameter information. . . . Since the Step-wise Temporal sub layer Access (STSA) samples grouping is included in bitstream, it is sequence level decoding parameter information[;] therefore, STSA is an element in SPS.” Ans. 18 (emphasis omitted); see Deshpande 133. We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not cited to sufficient support for the finding that inclusion in the bitstream necessarily means that STSA samples grouping is sequence level decoding parameter information. Reply Br. 7. As noted by Appellant, Deshpande’s PPS is (also) in a bitstream, but is not “sequence level information.” Id. We further agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not cited evidence to support the finding that something that is “sequence level information” is therefore “an element in an SPS.” Reply Br. 7. We find error in the Examiner’s finding that Deshpande discloses a SPS, that is activated when a stream to which the sample entry applies is decoded, that includes a syntax element that indicates that temporal sub layer up-switching to any higher temporal sub-layer can be performed at any 4 Appeal 2017-007091 Application No. 14/043,383 sample. Therefore, we also find that Deshpande does not disclose all the elements of the independent claims (1, 12, 22, 33, 43, 44, 45, and 46). We do not sustain the Examiner’s § 102(e) rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 12-14, 16, 22- 25,27, 33-35, 37, and 43-48. Claims 5, 7-11,15,17-21,26,28-32,36, and 38-42 These claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over at least Deshpande and Chen. The Examiner does not rely on Chen or Fenney to remedy the deficiencies of Deshpande identified supra with respect to independent claims 1, 12, 22, and 33, from which these claims variously depend. See Ans. 10, 16. Therefore, we do not sustain the § 103(a) rejections of claims 5, 7-11, 15, 17-21, 26, 28-32, 36, and 38-42, for the same reasons given with respect to the § 102 rejection of claim 1, supra. CONCLUSION Deshpande does not disclose a sequence parameter set (SPS) that is activated when a stream to which the sample entry applies is decoded, and which includes a syntax element that indicates that temporal sub-layer up- switching to any higher temporal sub-layer can be performed at any sample. ORDER The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-48 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation