Ex Parte Zheng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2018

13402719 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/402,719 02/22/2012
15150 7590 06/04/2018
Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A.
1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
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.
1010-774US01/l 11283 6096
EXAMINER
MUNG,ONS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/04/2018 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 YUNFEI ZHENG, WEI-JUNG CHIEN, and
MARTA KARCZEWICZ
Appeal2017-010908
Application 13/402,719
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR. and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 are appealing the final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8,
10-14, 16-19, 21-24, 26-28, 30-33, 35-37 and 47-54 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a). Appeal Brief7-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2012).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Qualcomm Incorporated as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief 3.
Appeal2017-010908
Application 13/402,719
Introduction
The invention is directed to techniques for coding video data.
Specification ,r 4.
Illustrative Claim
1. A method of decoding video data according to a merge
mode, the method comprising:
obtaining an index value for a current video block coded
in the merge mode;
generating a set of candidate predictive blocks for the
merge mode based on spatial and temporal neighbors to the
current video block;
limiting the set of generated candidate predictive blocks
for the merge mode to a subset of generated candidate
predictive blocks for the merge mode, wherein the subset of
generated candidate predictive blocks for the merge mode is
limited to be smaller than the set of generated candidate
predictive blocks for the merge mode;
selecting a predictive video block from the subset of
generated candidate predictive blocks for the merge mode based
on the index value; and
generating motion information for the current video
block according to the merge mode based on motion
information of the predictive video block, wherein generating
the motion information for the current video block includes
inheriting motion information from the predictive video block.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-14, 16-19, 21-24, 26-28, 30-33, 35-37 and
47-54 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I02(e) as being anticipated
by Park (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0107959 Al; published
May 2, 2013). Final Action 4--13.
2
Appeal2017-010908
Application 13/402,719
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 14, 2017), the Reply Brief (filed
August 22, 2017), the Answer (mailed June 22, 2017), and the Final Action
(mailed September 30, 2016) for the respective details.
Appellants contend, "Park describes generating sets of merging
candidates based the number of available candidate units or an arbitrary,
predefined number of candidates in specific positions." Appeal Brief 11
( citing generally Park ,r,r 78, 82, 83 and Abstract).
The Examiner finds Park teaches:
[L ]imiting the set of generated candidate predictive blocks
for the merge mode ( e.g. see abstract, paragraphs 0005, 0008-
0009, 0013, 0028, 0035: the number of available candidate
units/blocks for merging among the units are limited; Figs.
7-8, paragraphs 0071-0084: merge mode and merging
candidate units or blocks; Figs. 10-12c, paragraphs 0088-
0100: method for selecting/limiting merging candidates; also
see Figs. 9, 13-17c) to a subset of generated candidate predictive
blocks for the merge mode, wherein the subset of generated
candidate predictive blocks for the merge mode is limited to be
smaller than the set of generated candidate predictive blocks for
the merge mode [See Figs. 7-8, paragraphs 0071-0084: subset
of generated candidate units/blocks which are smaller than
the set of generated candidate blocks or units for merge
mode; Figs. 10-12c, paragraphs 0088-0100; also see Figs. 3-4,
paragraphs 0049-0057: partitioning the block into sub-
blocks; also see Figs. 9, 13-17c].
Final Action 5-6.
Appellants argue:
Park does not describe a first action of generating a set of
candidate predictive blocks and then a second, different action of
further limiting the generated set of candidates to a subset of
3
Appeal2017-010908
Application 13/402,719
candidate predictive blocks that is limited to have a smaller
cardinality than the set of generated candidate predictive blocks.
Instead, Park merely describes a single action of generating a set
having a certain size based on certain criteria.
Appeal Brief 11.
The Examiner additionally finds Parks teaches limiting the set of
generated candidate predictive blocks in Figure 4 and corresponding
paragraph 56. Answer 4. The Examiner finds:
By checking the specification of the present application, it
does not explicitly disclose the term "limiting" and the
expression " .... smaller than the set of generated candidate
predictive blocks" in the specification. However, the Examiner
recognizes that paragraph [0037] of Appellant's specification
teaches "the LCU can be partitioned into smaller CUs .... "
Answer4-5.
The Examiner concludes that
the blocks or macro-blocks [ of the claimed invention] are
partitioned into the smaller blocks or sub-blocks for the purpose
of prediction and performing the prediction on a smaller sub-
block which is the features or processes of H.264/ A VC and
HEVC (e.g. coding tree unit) standard video encoding as taught
by Park as above and thus, it is not new in the conventional art.
Answer 5 ( citing Park, paragraph 57).
We do not agree with the Examiner's findings. Anticipation under
35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that "each and every element as set forth in the
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference." In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citation
omitted). The Examiner cites multiple paragraphs from Park (see Final
Action 5---6), as well as provides an extensive explanation (see Answer 4--5),
to support the findings. However, in spite of the numerous citations and
4
Appeal2017-010908
Application 13/402,719
explanation, it is not evident that Park teaches limiting the candidate
predictive blocks to a subset of generated predictive blocks wherein the
subset is smaller than the set of the generated candidate predictive blocks as
claimed. We reviewed Park and could not discern where support for the
Examiner's anticipation rejection was found. Therefore, we reverse the
Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-14, 16-19, 21-24,
26-28, 30-33, 35-37 and 47-54. 2
DECISION
The Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-14,
16-19, 21-24, 26-28, 30-33, 35-37 and 47-54 is reversed.
REVERSED
2 The Examiner indicates that the Specification did not appear to support the
disputed limiting claim limitation. Answer 4--5. The Examiner cites to
paragraphs 43 and 57 of the Specification, however, the Examiner fails to
articulate whether the cited paragraphs support the limiting claim limitation.
Appellants contend support for the limitation is found in paragraphs 41, 42,
85-87, 91, and 92 and Figure 12 element 356. See Appeal Brief 3, footnote
5. We did not see support evident in the paragraphs or figure cited by
Appellants. In case of further prosecution, we recommend that the Examiner
review the Specification to determine if there is sufficient support for the
limiting claim limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
5