Ex Parte Yu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 26, 2017

13863094 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 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.
13/863,094 04/15/2013 Yue Yu GOGL-1097-C 6758
124222 7590 05/31/2017
Google Technology Holdings LLC
c/o Young Basile Hanlon & MacFarlane PC
3001 W. Big Beaver Road, Ste. 624
Troy, MI 48084
EXAMINER
LE, PETER D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2017 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):
docketing @ youngbasile. com
audit @ youngbasile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUE YU, JIAN LOU, and LIMIN WANG
Appeal 2017-001942
Application 13/863,0941
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—12. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to encoding data, including
“generating and processing slice headers with high efficiency video coded
data.” Spec. 12. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Google Technology
Holdings LLC. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-001942
Application 13/863,094
and is reproduced below with emphasis added to highlight the disputed
limitation.
1. In a processing device for decoding a sequence
comprising a plurality of pictures, each of the plurality of
pictures partitionable into one or more slices, each of the one or
more slices processed at least in part according to a slice
header, a method of processing the slice header describing slice
parameters, comprising:
(a) decoding an initial value for coding blocks within the
slice;
(b) decoding deblocking filter parameters according to
the slice header;
(c) determining, if a slice of the one or more slices is an
inter-predicted slice according to slice type data, wherein:
the slice is a B-type slice if the at least one coding
unit of the slice is coded using motion compensation
according to up to two motion vectors associated with at
least one reference picture;
the slice is a P-type slice if at least one coding unit
of the slice is coded using motion compensation
according to no more than one motion vector associated
with the at least one reference picture;
the slice is an I-type slice if no coding units of the
slice are coded using motion compensation; and
the slice is an inter-predicted slice only if it is a
P-type slice or a B-type slice;
(d) if the slice is determined to be an inter-picture
predicted slice, performing, with further slice type testing
performed only to identify the inter-predicted slice as either a
P-type slice or a B-type slice and with no further slice testing
performed to identify the inter-predicted slice as a slice type
other than a P-type slice or a B-type slice:
(1) determining if a sequence temporal motion
vector predictor flag indicates that the sequence in which
the picture is disposed may be encoded using the at least
one temporal motion vector predictor;
(2) if the sequence temporal motion vector
predictor flag indicates that the sequence in which the
2
Appeal 2017-001942
Application 13/863,094
picture is disposed is encoded using the at least one
temporal motion vector predictor, reading a slice/picture
temporal motion vector predictor enable flag indicating
that the picture in which the slice is disposed is encoded
using at least one temporal motion vector predictor;
(3) reading a reference picture override flag
indicating whether data describing a maximum index of
at least one list of reference pictures having the at least
one reference picture is included in the slice header;
(4) if the read reference picture override flag
indicates that the data describing the maximum index of
the at least one list of reference pictures having the at
least one reference picture is present, reading the data;
(5) reading reference picture list modification
information only if the at least one reference picture is
not implicitly defined;
(6) reading information indicating a structure of
motion vector differences used in the motion
compensation prediction if the slice is a B-slice;
(7) reading information defining initialization of
context variables for entropy coding of the slice only if
the information defining initialization of the context
variables is present in the slice header;
(8) determining if the slice is encoded using at
least one temporal motion predictor according to the read
picture temporal motion vector predictor enable flag;
(9) only if the slice encoded using at least one
temporal motion predictor, reading information
describing at least one reference picture of the slice
associated with the at least one temporal motion predictor
at least in part according to whether the slice is a P-type
slice or a B-type slice;
(10) applying a weighted prediction according to
whether the slice is a B-type slice or a P-type slice; and
(11) determining, from the slice header, a
maximum number of merged temporal motion vector
predictor candidates for the slice.
3
Appeal 2017-001942
Application 13/863,094
REJECTION2 ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1—12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Li et al. (US 2012/0287999 Al;
published Nov. 15, 2012) (hereinafter “Li”) and Information technology
— Coding of audio-visual objects—Part 10: Advanced Video
Coding (ISO/IEC 14496-10) (Int’lOrg. Standardization 2004)
(hereinafter “ISO”).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Li
and ISO teaches or suggests:
if the slice is determined to be an inter-picture predicted
slice, performing, with further slice type testing performed only
to identify the inter-predicted slice as either a P-type slice or a
B-type slice and with no further slice testing performed to
identify the inter-predicted slice as a slice type other than a
P-type slice or a B-type slice[,]
as recited in independent claims 1 and 9, and similarly recited in
independent claim 5. Br. 10—14. Before turning to whether the combination
teaches or suggests the disputed limitation with respect to method claim 5
and device claim 9, we first address the disputed limitation in the context of
method claim 1.
2 The Examiner also provisionally rejected claims 1—12 for obviousness-type
double patenting over claims 1—12 of copending Application
No. 13/863,127. No patent has issued yet from that copending Application,
nor do Appellants present arguments traversing this provisional rejection.
We find it is premature to address this provisional rejection. See In re
Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884, 1885 (BPAI2010) (precedential).
4
Appeal 2017-001942
Application 13/863,094
(1) Method claim 1
Claim 1 is directed to “a method of processing the slice header
describing slice parameters.” Br. 16. In the context of claim 1, the disputed
limitation is a conditional step (i.e., performing further slice type testing
“only to identify the inter-predicted slice as either a P-type slice or a B-type
slice and with no further slice testing performed to identify the inter-
predicted slice as a slice type other than a P-type slice or a B-type slice” is
conditioned (i.e., “if’) on the slice being “determined to be an inter-picture
predicted slice”).
A conditional step employed in a method claim need not be found in
the prior art if, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the method need
not invoke those steps. See Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016
WL 6277792, at *4 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential) (holding “[t]he
Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the
remaining method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed
under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”). The broadest
reasonable interpretation of claim 1 encompasses instances in which the
prerequisite condition for the disputed limitation is not met (i.e., when the
slice is determined not to be an inter-picture predicted slice).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1.
(2) Device claim 9 and method claim 5
Claim 9 is directed to “[a] processing device for decoding a
sequence.” Br. 23. Being a device claim, the Examiner needs to show that
the combination teaches or suggests the disputed limitation because the
processing device (e.g., the processor) needs to have the programming for
5
Appeal 2017-001942
Application 13/863,094
the “if’ condition (i.e., “if the slice is determined to be an inter-picture
predicted slice”) resident in memory regardless of whether the condition is
ever met.3 Claim 5 is a method claim directed to “a method of generating
the slice header describing slice parameters.” Br. 19. Although claim 5 is a
method claim, the disputed limitation in claim 5 is embedded within a non­
conditional step (i.e., “encoding slice header logic for performing,” inter
alia, the disputed limitation). Id. at 20. Thus, claim 5 is akin to device
claim 9 where the encoding of the if condition (i.e., “if the slice determined
to be an inter-picture predicted slice”) needs to occur regardless of whether
the condition is ever met and Schulhauser does not apply.
Appellants argue the combination of Li and ISO, and ISO in
particular, fails to teach or suggest limiting the further slice testing to testing
that is performed “only to identify the inter-predicted slice as either a P-type
slice or a B-type slice.” Br. 11—13. More specifically, Appellants argue the
portions of ISO cited by the Examiner “explicitly rely upon further slice type
testing that is performed for reasons [‘Jother than to identify the
interpredicted slice as either a P-type slice or a B-type slice.’ For example,
Section 7.3.3 . . . shows the inter-predicted slice is tested to identify SP-type
slices, Si-type slices and I-type slices in addition to P-type and B-type
slices.” Br. 12 (citing ISO 35 § 7.3.3 (“Slice header syntax”)); see also id.
at 13 (citing ISO § 7.3.3.1) (arguing “[t]his portion of ISO/IEC includes a
logical test to determine whether the slice type is type I or type SI”).
3 Ex parte Katz also discusses the difference in what the Examiner needs to
show for unpatentability for conditional limitations in non-method claims
versus method claims. See Katz, No. 2010-006083, 2011 WL 514314, at
*A-5 (BPAIJan. 27, 2011).
6
Appeal 2017-001942
Application 13/863,094
The Examiner finds the combination of Li and ISO teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 32—38. First, the Examiner finds the
phrase ‘“with further slice type testing performed only to identity the inter-
predicted slice does not provide any patentable weight.” Id. at 34.
Rather, the Examiner finds this “further . . . testing” phrase is redundant
because the slice already has been determined to be an inter-picture
predicted slice (e.g., the disputed limitation begins with the condition “if the
slice is determined to be an inter-picture predicted slice”). Id.
The Examiner also finds ISO teaches or suggests that the slice header
contains logic condition testing (e.g., “if’ statements) which is separate and
distinct (i.e., no redundancy between “if’ statements). Id. at 33 (citing ISO
§ 7.3.3). Thus, ISO teaches a portion of the header that concerns slice type
testing performed only to identify the slice as an inter-predicted slice. Id.',
see also id. at 37—38 (citing ISO § 7.3.3) (finding that the first logic
condition is taught by “‘if (slice_type == P II slicetype == SP II slicetype
== B)’” and the further slice testing performed only to identify the slice as a
B-type slice is taught by “‘if (slice_type == B)’”).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The combination of Li
and ISO fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. See ISO 35—36
(§ 7.3.3 “Slice header syntax”); 62 (“Table 7-3 - Name association to
slice_type”). The broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the
Specification, of “further slice type testing performed only to identify the
inter-predicted slice as either a P-type slice or a B-type slice” is not
commensurate in scope (i.e., redundant) with “determining, if a slice of the
one or more slices is an inter-predicted slice according to slice type data.”
For example, determining if a slice is an inter-predicted slice can be
7
Appeal 2017-001942
Application 13/863,094
accomplished by determining the slice is not an I-type slice (e.g., if a coding
unit within the slice is coded using motion compensation). See Br. 23—24
(reciting claim 9); see also Spec. 142, 153, 155, 157. In contrast, the
broadest reasonable interpretation of “identifying] the inter-predicted slice
as either a P-type slice or a B-type slice” requires determining whether the
slice is a P-type or whether the slice instead is a B-type — in other words,
the slice’s specific type must be identified. See Spec. Tflf 153, 157; Figs.
20A-20B.
We also agree with Appellants that ISO does not teach or suggest
having “no further slice testing performed to identify the inter-predicted
slice as a slice type other than a P-type slice or a B-type slice” in the context
of the claims. See, e.g., ISO § 7.3.3.1 (teaching a logical test to determine
whether the slice type is type I or type SI). More specifically, having ISO
teach that a portion of the further testing is conditioned on a slice being a B-
type (i.e., “if (slice_ type == B)”) does not teach or suggest that no further
slice testing is performed to identify the inter-predicted slice as a slice type
other than a P-type slice or a B-type slice. See, e.g., ISO § 7.3.3 (teaching
further testing for, inter alia, SP and SI slice types).
CONCLUSION
Based on our above findings, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2-4, as Appellants do not provide
separate arguments for their patentability. Based on our above findings, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 5 and 9, nor claims
6—8 and 10-12, which depend therefrom, respectively.
8
Appeal 2017-001942
Application 13/863,094
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1—4.
We reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 5—12.
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-IN-PART
9