Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2016

11200407 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111200,407 08/09/2005
23696 7590 09/21/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Haohong Wang
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.
050738 3076
EXAMINER
RAO, ANAND SHASHIKANT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2016 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 HAOHONG WANG, KHALED HELMI
EL-MALEH, and YI LIANG
Appeal2015-003742
Application 11/200,407
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JON M. JURGOV AN, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1-9, 11-23, 25-37, and 39-60.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm. 3
1 Appellants identify QUALCOMM Incorporated as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 2.)
2 Claims 10, 24, and 38 are canceled.
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Aug. 9, 2005 ("Spec."), the
Final Office Action mailed March 31, 2014 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief
filed Sept. 15, 2014 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer mailed Jan. 5,
2015 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed Feb. 18, 2015 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2015-003742
Application 11/200,407
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to skipping encoding of video in a non-region
of interest (ROI) area based on content activity in ROI and non-ROI areas,
and accumulated distortion. (Spec. Title.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for encoding video at an encoding module,
compnsmg:
obtaining a video frame;
encoding a region of interest (ROI) and a non-ROI area
within the video frame by allocating bits between the ROI and
the non-ROI area;
determining content activity in the ROI;
determining content activity in the non-ROI area; and
determining whether to skip encoding of the non-ROI area
of the video frame based on at least one of a content activity of
the ROI, a content activity of the non-ROI area, and an
accumulated distortion due to skipping of encoding of non-ROI
areas in one or more other video frames.
REJECTION
Claims 1-9, 11-23, 25-37, and 39-60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) based on Krishnamurthy (US 2003/0123751 Al, published July 3,
2003.) (Final Act. 5-13.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 15, 29, 43
A. Argument that Examiner failed to show features of claimed invention
Appellants argue Krishnamurthy fails to disclose the claimed
limitation of encoding a region of interest (ROI) and a non-ROI area within
the video frame by allocating bits between the ROI and non-ROI area in
combination with determining content activity in the ROI and the non-ROI
2
Appeal2015-003742
Application 11/200,407
area as well as determining whether to skip encoding of the non-ROI area of
the video frame. (App. Br. 8-9.) At most, Appellants contend,
Krishnamurthy discloses encoding a ROI and skipping encoding based on
content activity, but does not anticipate the specific features recited by the
independent claims. (Id.)
We do not agree with Appellants' argument. As the Examiner notes,
Krishnamurthy (i-fi-f 9-11, 26) teaches classifying regions of an image (ROis)
based on their relative importance and allocating more bits to more
important regions and less bits to less important regions. (Final Act. 6, 8,
10, 12, 11-12, Ans. 13.) Krishnamurthy also teaches coding modes can be
changed based on region importance or interest (i-fi-f 11, 34), and that coding
modes include skipping of coding, according to identified ROis (i-f 34).
Krishnamurthy (i-f 11) also contemplates RO Is experiencing motion, i.e.,
activity, are more important as compared to those ROis that are not. We
agree with the Examiner these teachings anticipate the argued limitations of
the independent claims. Krishnamurthy's teachings that the bit allocation
and coding options can be changed based on relative importance of the ROI
sets forth various options, and Appellants' claims are directed to a set of
those options, namely, skipping encoding less important ROI (non-ROI
area), thus using no bits to encode it, when activity in that ROI is low
compared to other ROis. Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in
the rejection.
B. Arguments concerning legal standards for anticipation
Appellants argue case law requires the Examiner to make certain
findings regarding anticipation under § 102 by clear and convincing
evidence. (App. Br. 9-11, Reply Br. 8.) We do not agree this is the
standard that applies to proceedings before the Patent Office. Appellants
3
Appeal2015-003742
Application 11/200,407
cite Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377-1378
(Fed. Cir. 2003) in support of their contention. However, this case involved
litigation in district court of a patent which has a presumption of validity
under 35 U.S.C. § 282. Matters before the Patent Office require the
Examiner's findings to be supported by preponderance of the evidence.
Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Appellants also assert that case law requires the Examiner to make
certain findings enumerated (1) to (9) in Appellants' Appeal Brief. (App.
Br. 10-11, Reply Br. 7-8.) We do not agree the case law requires the
Examiner to make all the enumerated findings. See MPEP § 2131 regarding
anticipation and MPEP § 2112 regarding inherency.
C. Argument that inherent anticipation cannot be proven by possibilities
Appellants argue that inherent anticipation cannot be proven by mere
possibilities. (App. Br. 12.) For reasons explained, we do not agree the
Examiner relied on mere possibilities. Instead, the Examiner notes
Krishnamurthy sets forth that bit allocation and coding mode options,
including a skipping mode, can be changed based on relative importance of
the ROI, which can be based on the amount of motion (i.e., activity) that the
ROI experiences. (Final Act. 6, 8, 10, 12, 11-12, Ans. 13.) Appellants'
claims cover a particular set of Krishnamurthy's options in which no bits are
allocated to a non-ROI in the skipping mode based on it having less activity
as compared to other ROis. (See Krishnamurthy i-fi-19-11, 26, 34.) Thus, we
are not persuaded the Examiner relies on mere possibilities to support the
rejection.
D. Argument concerning Examiner's alleged admission
Appellants argue the Examiner relied on Appellants' application in
finding that "[i]n order to react quickly, to a ROI change to another region
4
Appeal2015-003742
Application 11/200,407
on the frame as discussed by the Applicants (Amendment of 10/21/11; page
15, lines 21-29), the best way to achieve the stated goal ofKrishnamurthy's
low latency is to execute skip mode processing on non-ROI areas in
response to changing regions of interest, rather than chum out a time
consuming low quality version of non-ROI area which may not be needed
anyway." (App. Br. 12-13 citing Final Act. 3, Reply Br. 6, 8-9.)
Appellants contend this is a clear admission of the Examiner's reliance on an
inventive concept disclosed only in the present application, not in
Krishnamurthy, and is evidence of the Examiner violating the requirements
for finding inherent anticipation and engaging in impermissible hindsight.
(Id.)
We disagree with Appellants' contention. Krishnamurthy (i-f 26)
teaches: "Maintaining a low quality version of the current frame allows the
overall system to react quickly if the region of interest is changed to another
region on the current frame, i.e., allowing a low latency response in [a]
changing region of interest." This teaching coupled with Krishnamurthy's
skipping mode (i-f 34) supports the Examiner's findings. Thus, we are not
persuaded of Examiner error.
Regarding impermissible hindsight, this concept does not apply to an
anticipation rejection under § 102 where the Examiner did not explicitly rely
on§ 103(a).
E. Argument that Examiner's reliance on anticipatory inherency is a
concession that claimed features are undisclosed in Krishnamurthy
Appellants argue that the Examiner concedes features are missing in
Krishnamurthy by reliance on inherency. (App. Br. 13.) We do not agree.
The nature of inherency is that prior art teachings may disclose claimed
5
Appeal2015-003742
Application 11/200,407
features without expressly mentioning they are present. See MPEP § 2112.4
That is the case here where Krishnamurthy teaches bit allocation and coding
options, including a skipping mode, based on ROI importance determined by
how much motion or activity the ROI experiences. (See Krishnamurthy
iii! 9-11, 26, 34.) Again, Appellants' claims include a particular set of
options that fall within the scope of Krishnamurthy's disclosure.
F. Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for the dependent claims and
therefore we sustain the rejection for the reasons previously stated. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re King, 801F.2d1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986);
In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-9, 11-23, 25-
37, and 39---60 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
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
4 For example, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals held that although a
cooling step was not expressly disclosed by a prior art reference, it was
inherently disclosed because the material would have to be cooled to a
temperature to facilitate subsequent handling. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252,
1255 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
6