Ex Parte Wu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 14, 2018

13996280 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2018)

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.
13/996,280 06/20/2013 Zhuangfei Wu 1009-0571 / P32653 US1 8065
7590 02/16/2018
Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson
1255 Crescent Green
Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
DEMOSKY, PATRICK E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/16/2018 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):
official@mbhiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZHUANGFEI WU and THOMAS RUSERT1
Appeal 2017-008385
Application 13/996,280
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of
claims 15—28, all the pending claims in the present application.2 See
Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants name Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson as the real party in
interest. See Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 114 are cancelled. See Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-008385
Application 13/996,280
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Invention
The present invention relates to transforming Multi-view Video
Coding (“MVC”) video data to H.264/AVC Advanced Video Coding
(“AVC”). See Spec. 19.:3
Exemplary Claims
Claims 15, 19, 23, 25, 27, and 28 are independent claims. Claims 15
and 23 are exemplary and are reproduced below:
15. A method for transformation of a bit stream from
Multi-view Video Coding (MVC) to Advanced Video Coding
(AVC) in a video handling entity, the method comprising:
obtaining an MVC bit stream comprising multiple views;
identifying reference information in the MVC bit stream;
and
modifying the reference information, such that the MVC
bit stream is transformed into an AVC bit stream comprising
multiple views, thereby enabling at least two of said views
comprised in the AVC bit stream to be decoded by use of an
AVC decoder, wherein said modifying the reference
information comprises at least one of the following:
changing the order of reference picture indicators
in a reference picture list associated with at least one of
the pictures in at least one of the multiple views, and
3 This Decision refers to: (1) Appellants’ Specification filed June 20, 2013
(“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed January 14,
2016; (3) the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed November 17, 2016; (4) the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed March 16, 2017; and (5) the Reply
Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed May 15, 2017.
2
Appeal 2017-008385
Application 13/996,280
changing a Picture Order Count (POC) syntax
element in a slice header to correspond to an order of
appearance of the pictures from the different views in the
A VC bit stream.
23. A method for reversed transformation of a bit
stream from A VC to MVC in a video handling entity, the
method comprising:
obtaining an A VC bit stream comprising multiple views;
identifying reference information in the A VC bit stream;
determining whether the prediction structure of the A VC
bit stream can be applied to MVC; and,
when a prediction structure of the AVC bit stream can be
applied to MVC, modifying the reference information, such that
the AVC bit stream is transformed into an MVC bit stream
comprising multiple views, thereby enabling at least two of said
views comprised in the MVC bit stream to be decoded by use
of an MVC decoder, wherein said modifying the reference
information comprises at least one of the following:
changing the order of reference picture indicators in a
reference picture list associated with at least one of the pictures
in at least one of the multiple views, and
changing a Picture Order Count (POC) syntax element in
a slice header to correspond to an order of appearance of the
pictures from the different views in the MVC bit stream.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Pandit et al. (“Pandit”)
Koo et al. (“Koo”)
Chen et al. (“Chen”)
US 2009/0268816 Al Oct. 29, 2009
US 2010/0266042 Al Oct. 21,2010
WO 2008/047303 A2 Apr. 24, 2008
WO 2008/084424 Al July 17, 2008Hannuksela et al.
(“Hannuksela”)
3
Appeal 2017-008385
Application 13/996,280
REJECTIONS
Claims 15—22 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Hannuksela and Chen. Final
Act. 5—9.
Claims 23—26 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Hannuksela, Chen, and Pandit.
Final Act. 10—15.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
the issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made are waived. See
Manual of Patent Examining Procedures (MPEP) § 1205.02; 37 C.F.R.
§§41.37(c)(l)(iv), 41.39(a)(1).
ANALYSIS
Rejection under § 103 (a) of Claims 15—22 and 27
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Hannuksela and Chen teaches or suggests “changing the order of reference
picture indicators in a reference picture list associated with at least one of the
pictures in at least one of the multiple views,” as set forth in claim 15?
Appellants note Chen teaches changing the order of reference picture
indicators, as claimed, but argues “[wjhile Chen therefore describes
reordering reference pictures in an AVC reference picture list, this
reordering relates to truncation for buffer management and has nothing to do
with transformation of a bit stream from AVC to MVC (or from MVC to
AVC).” Appeal Br. 10. Appellants further argue “Chen does not describe
reordering a reference picture list of an MVC bit stream in a way so that it
can be decoded by an AVC decoder” Id.
4
Appeal 2017-008385
Application 13/996,280
We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions set forth in the Office Action and Answer. See Final Act; 5—6;
Ans. 15—19. Our discussion here will be limited to the following points of
emphasis.
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner finds “[e]ven
though the explanation of reordering reference picture lists in Chen from
paragraphs 0014 to 0023 is with respect to AVC streams, the disclosure of
Chen would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to extend these practices
to MVC streams as well.” Ans. 15—16. The Examiner further finds
Hannuksela teaches transforming MVC bit streams to AVC bit streams by
modifying reference information. Final Act. 5 (citing Hannuksela 122).
We agree with the Examiner.
Appellants’ arguments do not take into account what the collective
teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art and are therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)(the test for
obviousness is “what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”) (citations omitted). This
reasoning is applicable here because Appellants primarily argue that features
are missing from one reference when the Examiner is relying on the other
reference for such features, e.g., Appellants argue Chen’s modifying
reference information by changing the order of reference picture indicators
“has nothing to do with transformation of a bit stream from AVC to MVC”
(Appeal Br. 10, emphasis omitted) when the Examiner relies on Hannuksela
to teach modifying the reference information, such that the MVC bit stream
is transformed into an AVC bit stream, as claimed. That is, the Examiner
5
Appeal 2017-008385
Application 13/996,280
relies on Hannuksela to teach transforming a bit stream from AVC to MVC
by modifying reference information and relies on Chen to teach a specific
form of modifying reference information that includes changing the order of
reference picture indicators. See Final Act. 5—6. The Examiner further finds
“the explanation of reordering reference picture lists in Chen” would enable
one of ordinary skill in the art to extend these practices to MVC streams
“[e]ven though the explanation of reordering reference picture lists in Chen
. . . is with respect to AVC streams.” Ans. 15.
Thus, we find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive because
Appellants fail to take into account what the collective teachings of
Hannuksela and Chen would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art.
Appellants further argue it would not have been obvious to modify
Hannuksela in view of Chen because “Chen’s paragraph 13 appears to
suggest that an AVC decoder should be able to use the nal_ref_idc to
determine whether an NAL unit of an MVC stream is relevant or not for
reconstruction of sample values.” Appeal Br. 12. “If this teaching of Chen
is used to modify the teaching of Hannuksela, which is that an NAL header
can be modified, the combined system of Hannuksela and Chen merely
modifies the nal ref idc of the NAL header.” Id.
We are not persuaded because Appellants fail to provide evidence that
the Examiner relies on the nal_ref_idc syntax element discussed at
paragraph 13 of Chen in rejecting claim 15. Rather, the Examiner relies on
Chen for its teaching of reordering reference picture indicators in a reference
picture list. Final Act. 6 (citing Chen || 20, 21, 33; Ans. 16).
6
Appeal 2017-008385
Application 13/996,280
Appellants’ contentions are premised on a “physical” or “bodily”
incorporation of limitations of one reference into the other. However, this is
not the standard. See In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
(“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically
combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”). The relevant
inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to
those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those
references. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. “Combining the teachings of
references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”
In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973). Rather than express
obviousness as the physical incorporation of a structure from one reference
into the structure of another reference, the prior art should be viewed as a
combination of teachings from different sources, and the use of those
teachings by one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (the conclusion of obviousness can be based
on the interrelated teachings of multiple patents.)
Here, the Examiner has found actual teachings in the prior art and has
provided a rationale for combining the teachings, namely that it would have
been obvious to “modify the invention disclosed by Hannuksela to add the
teachings of Chen in order to control the required memory resources for
decoding of conformant bitstreams.” Final Act. 6 (citing Chen || 25, 28,
29). We, therefore, determine the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion is
based on sufficiently articulated reasoning that is rational and supported by
evidence drawn from the record.
Appellants argue “Koo does not bridge the gap between the teachings
of Hannuksela and the teachings of Chen.” Appeal Br. 17. We find this
7
Appeal 2017-008385
Application 13/996,280
argument unpersuasive because do not agree with Appellants’ premise that
there is a gap between the teachings, as discussed above.
Appellants argue “[t]he introduction of Koo ... [in the Advisory
Action mailed April 21, 2016] constitutes a new ground of rejection.”
Appeal Br. 14. This issue, however, is a petitionable matter, as opposed to
an appealable matter, and therefore is not before us. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.113.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) rejection
of claim 15. We also sustain the Examiner’s § 103 (a) rejection of
independent claims 19 and 27, which are argued with independent claim 15
for similar reasons. See Appeal Br. 17. Dependent claims 16—18 and 20-22
are either not argued separately or are nominally argued separately and fall
with their respective independent claims. See Appeal Br. 18.
Rejection under § 103 (a) of Claims 23—26 and 28
Issue: Did the Examiner err in concluding it would have been
obvious to combine the teachings and suggestions of Hannuksela, Chen, and
Pandit in the manner recited in claim 23?
Appellants argue the Examiner “fails to explain why or how a person
of ordinary skill in the art would combine Hannuksela’s mention of MVC to
AVC conversion with Pandit’s teaching of AVC to MVC transcoding and
then with Chen’s AVC reference list reordering for a DPB [decoded picture
buffer].” Appeal Br. 19.
Appellants’ argument that the combination lacks the required
motivation is not persuasive because Appellants do not specifically address
the motivations identified by the Examiner, but merely assert the
motivations lack explanation. See Final Act. 11, 12.
8
Appeal 2017-008385
Application 13/996,280
We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions set forth in the Answer. See Ans. 19—20. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that Hannuksela teaches “obtaining an AVC bit stream
comprising multiple views.” Final Act. 10 (citing Hannuksela 122). The
Examiner finds, and we agree, that the secondary reference Pandit teaches
the known technique of “determining whether the prediction structure of the
AVC bit stream can be applied to MVC” and “modifying the reference
information, such that the AVC bit stream is transformed into an MVC bit
stream comprising multiple views, thereby enabling at least two of said
views comprised in the MVC bit stream to be decoded by use of an MVC
decoder” (Final Act. 10), which may be combined with the teachings of
Hannuksela “to provide high-quality video content service or high speed
service at a user request.” Final Act. 11. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
that the tertiary reference Chen teaches the known technique of “changing
the order of reference picture indicators ... in a reference picture list” (Final
Act. 12), which may be combined with the teachings of Hannuksela because
“the disclosure of Chen would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to
extend these practices to MVC streams as well” (Ans. 18).
The Examiner has found actual teachings in the prior art and has
provided a rationale for the combination. That is, for the combination of
Hannuksela and Pandit the Examiner indicates
[i]t would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill
in the art to modify the invention disclosed by Hannuksela to
add the teachings of Pandit in order to provide high-quality
video content service or high speed service at a user request.
This video transcoding scheme may be useful when a user
device only supports a certain video codec, or when an amount
9
Appeal 2017-008385
Application 13/996,280
or speed of data to be transmitted has to be controlled according
to a condition of a network.
Final Act. 11 (citing Pandit H 31). Next, for the combination of Hannuksela
and Chen the Examiner indicates “[i]t would have been obvious to the
person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention disclosed by
Hannuksela to add the teachings of Chen in order to control the required
memory resources for decoding of conformant bitstreams.” Final Act. 12
(citing Chen || 25, 28, 29).
Moreover, we determine that the teachings suggest that the
combination involves the predictable use of prior art elements according to
their established functions and Appellants do not provide persuasive
evidence to the contrary. “The combination of familiar elements according
to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results,” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, especially if the combination
would not be “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in
the artLeapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Accordingly, we determine
the Examiner has provided sufficient motivation for modifying Hannuksela
with the teachings of Pandit and Chen.
Appellants argue the Examiner’s reasoning is based on improper
hindsight. Appeal Br. 19. We are not persuaded. Rather than using
hindsight, the Examiner points to specific disclosures in the prior art that
describe each of the limitations of Appellants’ claim 23. (See Final Act. 10—
12.) The Examiner also articulates reasons having rational underpinnings
for the proposed combination. See Final Act. 11, 12. We therefore find that
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection is based on sufficiently articulated
10
Appeal 2017-008385
Application 13/996,280
reasoning that is rational and supported by evidence drawn from the record,
and that overcomes any concerns about hindsight bias. See KSR, 550 U.S. at
416.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) rejection
of claim 23. We also sustain the Examiner’s § 103 (a) rejection of
independent claims 25 and 28, which are argued with independent claim 23
for similar reasons. See Appeal Br. 19. Dependent claims 24 and 26 are
either not argued separately or are nominally argued separately and fall with
their respective independent claims. See Appeal Br. 19.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 (a) rejections of claims 15—28.
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
11