14098357 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2018)

Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 30, 2018

14098357 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/098,357 12/05/2013 15150 7590 06/01/2018 Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A. 1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100 Woodbury, MN 55125 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Li Zhang 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. 1212-747US01/130851U3 5441 EXAMINER MUNG,ONS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2018 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): 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 LI ZHANG, YING CHEN, and MARTAKARCZEWICZ Appeal2017-009391 Application 14/098,357 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-33, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Qualcomm Incorporated. App. Br. 3. Appeal2017-009391 Application 14/098,357 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' Invention Appellants' invention generally relates to "inter-view residual prediction for multi-layer encoder-decoders (codecs) and three-dimensional video (3DV) codecs based on two-dimensional codecs, such as High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)." Spec. ,r 7. Claim 1, which is illustrative of the claimed invention, reads as follows: 1. A method of coding video data, the method compnsmg: determining a partition mode for coding a block of video data, wherein the partition mode indicates a division of the block of video data for predictive coding; determining whether to code a weighting factor for an inter-view residual prediction process based on the determined partition mode, wherein the inter-view residual prediction process includes coding first residual data for the block that is associated with the first view based on second residual data that is associated with a second view that is different than the first view; and coding the block of video data with the determined partition mode. Reference The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Gerhard Tech et al., 3D-HEVC Test Model 1, 1st Meeting of Joint Collaborative Team on 3D Video Coding Extension Development of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JCT I/SC 29/WG 11 (2012) (hereinafter "Tech"). Rejection Claims 1-33 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a) as being anticipated by Tech. Final Act. 5-17. 2 Appeal2017-009391 Application 14/098,357 ANALYSIS Appellants contend Tech fails to disclose "determining a partition mode for coding a block of video data, wherein the partition mode indicates a division of the block of video data" and "determining whether to code a weighting factor for an inter-view residual prediction process based on the determined partition mode," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 7-12; Reply Br. 5-8. The Examiner finds Tech discloses that the coding unit syntax indicates various partition modes and that these partition modes indicate the partition or division of the video block for predictive coding. Ans. 3 ( citing Tech 51-53). The Examiner finds Tech further discloses the usage of inter- view residual prediction can be adaptively selected on a block or coding unit (CU) basis. Ans. 3 (citing TechÂ§ 2.2.5.1). The Examiner finds Tech discloses "CU, PU [partition unit], and TU [transform unit] partition types are associated with 'the partition modes' according to conventional HEVC [High Efficiency Video Coding] coding scheme, and thus, it corresponds to the claim limitation 'a partition mode that indicates a division of the block of video data,"' as recited in claim 1. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds Tech discloses "determining whether to code a weighting factor for an inter-view residual prediction process based on the determined partition mode" because: Tech discloses that inter-view residual prediction is used for temporally predicted PUs and CUs where [an] inter-view residual prediction flag is true and Inter-view residual prediction is enabled with a weighting factor of Yz, otherwise, Inter-view residual prediction is disabled. Tech also suggests that when inter-view residual prediction is enabled with a weighting factor 3 Appeal2017-009391 Application 14/098,357 of 1/2, the reference residual used in inter-view residual prediction is divided by 2 and if inter-view residual prediction is disabled for all PUs in a CU, [the] inter-view residual prediction flag is not encoded/decoded for the CU (see [Tech] page 20, section 2.2.5.2). Ans. 4. Appellants argue "to the extent Tech separately describes partition modes and inter-view residual prediction, Tech does not describe or suggest performing any aspect of inter-view residual prediction based on a partition mode." App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 5. According to Appellants, Tech, instead, discloses performing inter-view residual prediction based on the availability of a reference residual signal and a type of the reference residual reference signal. App. Br. 8 (citing TechÂ§Â§ 2.2.5.1, 2.2.5.2). Appellants argue "Tech does not describe any relationship between inter-view residual prediction ... and partition modes." App. Br. 11. Appellants argue "a mere understanding that a CU can be partitioned to form multiple PU s provides no disclosure related to using information indicating how a CU was partitioned for determining whether to code a weighting factor for an inter-view residual prediction process, as required by claim 1. Reply Br. 8. We find Appellants' arguments persuasive. As noted by Appellants (Reply Br. 7), Tech discloses determining whether inter-view residual prediction is enabled, and what the weighting factor should be if inter-view residual prediction is enabled, based on the view index of the current picture (CurrViewidx), the view index of a reference picture for uni-prediction (ReNiewidx), and the view index of reference picture from lists O and 1 (RefOViewidx and Refl Viewldx) for bi-prediction (TechÂ§ 2.2.5.2; see also TechÂ§ G.7.3.9.1). Tech further discloses that, in the bi-prediction case, when inter-view residual prediction is enabled, the weighting factor is 1/2. 4 Appeal2017-009391 Application 14/098,357 TechÂ§ 2.2.5.2. However, the Examiner's findings are insufficient to show that Tech discloses determining whether to code the weighting factor based on a partition mode for coding a block of video data, as required by claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1; independent claims 10, 21, and 27, which recite corresponding limitations; and claims 2-9, 11-20, 22-26, and 28-33, which depend from claims 1, 10, 21, and 27. We do not reach Appellants' further allegations of error because we find the issue discussed above to be dispositive as to the rejection of all pending claims. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-33. REVERSED 5