Ex Parte Zheng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

13138239 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/138,239 07/22/2011
12905 7590 10/04/2016
Jack Schwartz & Associates, PLLC
6165 Jericho Turnpike
Cammack, NY 11725
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yunfei Zheng
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.
PU090020 5510
EXAMINER
ZHOU, ZHIHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2016 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):
jack@jschwartzesq.com
pat. verlangieri@technicolor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUNFEI ZHENG, XIAOAN LU,
JOLE SOLE, PENG YIN, and QIAN XU1
Appeal2015-006603
Application 13/138,239
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11, 13-15, 17, 19, 21-23, 25, 27, 29-31, and
34-45. Claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, 24, 26, 28, 32, and 33 are
canceled. App. Br. 37--41. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Invention
Appellants disclose "methods and apparatus for adaptive mode video
encoding and decoding." Spec. 1, 11. 11-12.
1 Appellants identify THOMSON LICENSING as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-006603
Application 13/138,239
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
illustrative:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
an encoder configured to encode a video sequence of
pictures; and
the encoder further configured to derive mode mapping
information during the encoding of the video sequence of
pictures;
wherein the mode mapping information provides a
mapping between at least a mode index and a plurality of sub-
types of coding modes available to encode the video sequence of
pictures, and
wherein the encoder encodes at least a picture in the video
sequence with a mode mapping,
wherein the encoder derives an adapted mode mapping for
encoding subsequent pictures in the video sequence after
encoding the at least a picture, and
wherein the adapted mode mapping information is derived
by adapting the mapping information of the sub-types of coding
modes based on information from the previously coded at least a
picture within the video sequence of pictures.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5-7, 9, 13-15, 17, 21-23, 25, 29-31,
and 34--37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas
Wiegand et al., eds., Draft ITU-T Recommended and Final Draft Int 'l
Standard of Joint Video Specification (ITU-T Rec. H.264, ISO/IEC 14496-
10 AVC) (Mar. 2005) ("Wiegand") and Kim et al. (US 2009/0296812 Al;
published Dec. 3, 2009). Final Act. 2---6.
2
Appeal2015-006603
Application 13/138,239
The Examiner rejects claims 3, 11, 19, and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being upatentable over Wiegand, Kim, and Yin et al. (WO 2007 I
081908 Al; published July 19, 2007). Final Act. 6.
The Examiner rejects claims 38--41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wiegand, Kim, and Schlanger (US 2010/0111166 Al;
published May 6, 2010). Final Act. 6-7.
The Examiner rejects claims 42--45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wiegand, Kim, and Choi et al. (US 2010/0046614 A 1;
published Feb. 25, 2010). Final Act. 7-8.
The Examiner alternatively rejects claims 1, 5-7, 9, 13-15, 17, 21-23,
25, 29-31, and 34--41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Wiegand and Schlanger. Final Act. 8-12.
The Examiner alternatively rejects claims 3, 11, 19, and 27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wiegand, Schlanger, and Yin.
Final Act. 12-13.
The Examiner alternative rejects claims 42--45 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wiegand, Schlanger, and Choi. Final
Act. 13-14.
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding the either the combination of
Wiegand and Kim or the combination of Wiegand and Schlanger teaches or
suggests "wherein the mode mapping information provides a mapping
between at least a mode index and a plurality of sub-types of coding modes
... wherein the encoder derives an adapted mode mapping for encoding
subsequent pictures in the video sequence after encoding the at least a
picture," as recited in claim 1?
3
Appeal2015-006603
Application 13/138,239
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Wiegand's identification of
allowed collective macroblock types for various slice types teaches or
suggests wherein the mode mapping information provides a mapping
between at least a mode index and a plurality of sub-types of coding modes.
Final Act. 3 (citing, e.g., Wiegand 68-71, 74--75, and tables 7-10, 7-14).
The Examiner relies on Kim's method of determining a best mode and block
size by prediction in a plurality of prediction modes to teach or suggest
wherein the encoder derives an adapted mode mapping for encoding
subsequent pictures in the video sequence after encoding the at least a
picture. Final Act. 3 (citing Kim i-fi-f 10, 19, 41--42, 45, and 54--55).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because "Kim fails to disclose
any mode mapping, and fails to disclose an adapted mode mapping. Kim is
limited to discussing changing code modes. Kim does not discuss, teach or
suggest adaptively changing the mapping of code modes to mode indices."
App. Br. 21. Rather, "all that Kim discusses [is] prediction that can be
selectively based on the best mode and block size used in a previous frame."
Id. at 22. Appellants contrast this with the claimed invention, which "is
directed to adaptively changing the mode mapping, that is, for example,
changing which mode is mapped to index '1,' where index '1' may be the
most frequently used mode." Id.
We find Appellants' arguments persuasive. The claimed invention
relates to deriving an adapted mode mapping between a mode index and a
plurality of sub-types of coding modes. See, e.g., Spec. Figs. 2A-B. The
Examiner's findings regarding Kim are directed to teachings and suggestions
related to selecting, through prediction, a mode and block size. Final Act. 3;
4
Appeal2015-006603
Application 13/138,239
Ans. 16. However, such prediction, even in combination with the teachings
and suggestions of Wiegand, does not adapt the mode mapping itself (i.e.,
what coding mode a mode index represents). Therefore, we agree with
Appellants the Examiner's findings do not show the combination of
Wiegand and Kim teaches or suggests "wherein the mode mapping
information provides a mapping between at least a mode index and a
plurality of sub-types of coding modes ... wherein the encoder derives an
adapted mode mapping for encoding subsequent pictures in the video
sequence after encoding the at least a picture," as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner alternatively relies on Schlanger' s prediction of motion
vectors to teaches or suggests wherein the encoder derives an adapted mode
mapping for encoding subsequent pictures in the video sequence after
encoding the at least a picture, as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 9 (citing
Schlanger i-fi-136, 42--46, and Fig. 5); Ans. 19-20. However, Appellants
persuasively argue that Schlanger's changing of a set of motion vectors does
not adapt a code mapping. App. Br. 26-27. That is, while Schlanger
teaches, for example, removing unneeded vectors (see, e.g., Schlanger i1 56,
Figs. 5, 9), the Examiner's findings do not show that Schlanger's motion
vector prediction and culling, even in combination with the teachings and
suggestions of Wiegand, teaches or suggests adapting a mode mapping (i.e.,
what coding mode a mode index represents). Therefore, we agree with
Appellants that the Examiner's findings do not show that the combination of
Wiegand and Schlanger teaches or suggests "wherein the mode mapping
information provides a mapping between at least a mode index and a
plurality of sub-types of coding modes ... wherein the encoder derives an
5
Appeal2015-006603
Application 13/138,239
adapted mode mapping for encoding subsequent pictures in the video
sequence after encoding the at least a picture," as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of claim 1 as being unpatentable over either the combination of
Wiegand and Kim or the combination of Wiegand and Schlanger. The
Examiner does not show that Yin or Choi cure the noted deficiency of
Wiegand, Kim, and Schlanger. Therefore, we also do not sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 3, 5-7, 9, 11, 13-15, 17,
19, 21-23, 25, 27, 29-31, and 34--45.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11,
13-15, 17, 19, 21-23, 25, 27, 29-31, and 34--45.
REVERSED
6