Ex Parte Yang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 25, 2018

13333256 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/333,256 12/21/2011
51472 7590 06/27/2018
GARLICK & MARKISON (BRCM)
106 E. 6th Street, Suite 900
AUSTIN, TX 78701
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Zhijie Yang
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.
BP23216 8218
EXAMINER
MUNG,ONS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2018 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):
MMURDOCK@TEXASPATENTS.COM
bpierotti@texaspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZHIJIE YANG and
BHASKAR SHERIGAR MALA SHERIGAR
Appeal2016-005665
Application 13/333,256 1
Technology Center 2400
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON J. CHUNG, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to "performing video coding using blocks
and/or sub-blocks in accordance with such digital video processing."
Spec. 2:4--5. Claim 1 illustrates the invention:
1. An apparatus comprising:
an input configured to receive a bitstream, corresponding
to a video signal, and including a plurality of tree blocks;
1 Appellants list Broadcom Corp. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2016-005665
Application 13/333,256
a parser and treeblock splitter configured to:
partition adaptively the plurality of tree blocks
(TBs) into a plurality of subtreeblocks (STBs) such that
each of the plurality of TBs correspond[] to a respective
plurality of STBs; and
output the plurality of STBs, in parallel, via a first
pathway and a second pathway of a plurality of
pathways;
a video decoder including:
a first decoding engine configured to receive the
plurality of STBs via the first pathway and to perform a
first at least one video decoding operation to generate a
first at least one intermediate decoded resultant; and
a second decoding engine configured to receive
the plurality of STBs via the second pathway and to
perform a second at least one video decoding operation
that is different than and is independent from the first at
least one video decoding operation, in parallel with the
first decoding engine performing the first at least one
video decoding operation, to generate a second at least
one intermediate decoded resultant; and
a combiner configured to combine the first at least
one intermediate decoded resultant and the second at
least one intermediate decoded resultant to generate at
least one decoded resultant; and wherein:
the first decoding engine configured to partition
adaptively the plurality of STBs further into a plurality of sub-
STBs and to perform the first at least one video decoding
operation on the plurality of sub-STBs to generate the first at
least one intermediate decoded resultant;
the parser and tree block splitter configured to partition
adaptively the plurality of TBs into a plurality of STBs based
on at least of at least one characteristic associated with at least
one local processing condition of the apparatus and at least one
characteristic associated with at least one source device to
provide the bitstream via at least one communication network;
and
each of the plurality of STBs having a size of 32 pixels
by 32 pixels.
2
Appeal2016-005665
Application 13/333,256
App. Br. 26-27 (emphases added) (Claims App'x).
REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Han et al. (US 2011/0096826 Al;
published Apr. 28, 2011) (hereinafter, "Han") and Tsou et al.
(US 2007/0292113 Al; published Dec. 20, 2007) (hereinafter, "Tsou").
Final Act. 3-12.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds paragraphs 23 5 and 317 of Han teach:
output the plurality of STBs in parallel, via a first pathway and
a second pathway of a plurality of pathways ... [and] a first
decoding engine ... configured to receive the plurality of STBs
via the first pathway ... [and] a second decoding engine ...
configured to receive the plurality of STBs via the second
pathway
(hereinafter, "the disputed limitation") as recited in claims 1 and 6 (and
similarly recited in claim 18). Final Act. 5---6, 10-11 (citing Han i-fi-1235,
317). In addition, the Examiner finds Han teaches "if there are a plurality of
arithmetic processors, the arithmetic processors may continuously and
simultaneously perform independent parsing and independent decoding on
different data units." Ans. 3 (citing Han i1235) (emphasis added). The
Examiner finds independent claims 1, 6, and 18 do not recite the "same"
signals are processed using different respective video decoding operations.
Ans. 6.
Appellants argue Han's parallel processing fails to teach that a first
decoding engine and a second decoding engine receive the same plurality of
3
Appeal2016-005665
Application 13/333,256
sub-treeblocks (hereinafter, "STBs"). App. Br. 16-25; Reply Br. 2--4. We
agree with Appellants.
Although the Examiner is correct that the independent claims do not
recite the word "same" (Ans. 6), claim 1 recites "a first decoding engine
configured to receive the plurality of STBs" and "a second decoding engine
configured to receive the plurality of STBs." Here, "the plurality of STBs"
received by both decoding engines share the same antecedent basis and
therefore refer to the same plurality of STBs.
We agree with the Examiner finding that Han teaches "if there are a
plurality of arithmetic processors, the arithmetic processors may
continuously and simultaneously perform independent parsing and
independent decoding on different data units." Ans. 3 (citing Han i-f 235)
(emphasis added). In addition, paragraph 317 of Han relied upon by the
Examiner (Final Act. 5---6 (citing Han i-f 31 7)) also recites performing parallel
decoding simultaneously on different coding units. Han i-f 317. Thus, Han's
performing parallel decoding simultaneously on different coding units of an
input signal (Han i-fi-1235, 317) fails to teach the disputed limitation. The
Examiner fails to consider the independent claims as having the "same"
"plurality of STBs" (Ans. 6); therefore, the Examiner did not respond
sufficiently to Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 16-24; Reply Br. 2--4).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of:
(1) independent claims 1, 6, and 18; and (2) dependent claims 2-5, 7-17,
and 19-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
4
Appeal2016-005665
Application 13/333,256
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
5