Ex Parte Zhou

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 16, 2018

14664992 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/664,992 03/23/2015
23494 7590 04/18/2018
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
P 0 BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
MinhuaZhou
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.
TI-69618A 1012
EXAMINER
PIERORAZIO, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/18/2018 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MINHUA ZHOU
Appeal2017-010630
Application 14/664,992
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. A method for sub-picture based raster scanning
coding order, comprising:
dividing a picture into a plurality of non
overlapping blocks;
Appeal2017-010630
Application 14/664,992
grouping the non overlapping blocks into a
plurality of sub-pictures with sub-picture boundaries;
coding of a first of the plurality of the sub-
pictures is performed on a first processing core and
coding of a second of the plurality of the sub-pictures is
performed on a second processing core wherein the
coding of the first sub-picture and the second sub-
pictures is independent around the sub-picture
boundaries, and wherein the coding of the first sub-
picture and the second subpicture is performed in
parallel; and
encoding the plurality of sub-pictures sequentially
into a bit stream upon completion of the coding wherein
the non overlapping blocks in each of said plurality of
sub-pictures is encoded in a raster scan order.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Iwata et al. (US 2008/0031329 Al; published Feb. 7,
2008) ("Iwata") and Jia (US 2010/0091880 Al; published Apr. 15, 2010). 1' 2
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious?
1 Appellant's arguments for independent claim 3 are substantially similar to
the arguments for claim 1. See App. Br. 16-18. Further, the patentability of
claims 2 and 4--10 is not separately argued from that of claims 1 and 3. See
App. Br. 12-18. Thus, except for our ultimate decision, claims 2-10 are not
discussed further herein.
2 The Examiner indicated that the obvious-type double patenting rejection of
claims 1-2, 5---6, and 9-10 was withdrawn. See Ans. 3.
2
Appeal2017-010630
Application 14/664,992
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[Claim 1 comprises] the limitations of coding of a first of the
plurality of the sub-pictures is performed on a first processing
core and coding of a second of the plurality of the sub-pictures is
performed on a second processing core wherein the coding of the
first subpicture and the second sub-pictures is independent
around the sub-picture boundaries, and wherein the coding of the
first sub-picture and the second sub-picture is performed in
parallel. This is shown in Fig. 6 of the instant disclosure where
the sub-picture 1 (and its non overlapping blocks) is processed
on core 1 and sub-picture 2 (and its non overlapping blocks) is
processed on core 2 in parallel and independent around sub-
picture boundaries. Under a proper interpretation of the cited
Iwata publication the various macroblocks (i.e. MBOOO - MB
811) shown in Fig. 2 of Iwata are grouped into the various slices
(i.e. Slice#O, Slice#l and Slice#2) also shown in the Figure. Iwata
then describes processing microblocks MB606 and MB 706 on
different cores Codec-EL-0 and Codec_EL-1 in parallel.
However as clearly seen in Fig. 2 of Iwata microblocks MB606
and MB706 are in the same slice and this does not comport to
the claimed limitations described above. In fact it is this clearly
described feature in Iwata that forces the Examiner to adopt
the illogical description of Iwata that the slices (i.e. Slice#O,
Slice#[ and Slice#2) shown in Fig. 2 of Iwata are "grouped"
into the macro blocks (i.e. MBOOO - MB 811) also shown in
Fig. 2 of Iwata.
App. Br. 13-14 (Appellant's emphasis omitted; panel's emphasis added);
see also App. Br. 16-17; see also Reply Br. 5---6. 3
This argument is persuasive. We agree with Appellant that the
combination of Iwata and Jia fails to teach or suggest coding a first sub-
3 These contentions are determinative as to the rejections on appeal.
Therefore, Appellant's other contentions are not discussed herein.
3
Appeal2017-010630
Application 14/664,992
picture on a first processing core and a second sub-picture on a second
processing core, where the aforementioned coding is both independent
around the sub-picture boundaries and performed in parallel. Rather, the
coding disclosed in the combination of Iwata and Jia is different from the
claimed coding for two separate and independent reasons. First, Iwata
teaches coding macroblocks (i.e., the claimed "non-overlapping blocks")
from a single slice (i.e., the claimed "sub-picture") on separate moving
picture processing units, as opposed to teaching coding macroblocks from
separate slices on separate moving picture processing units. Therefore, the
coding disclosed in Iwata is not the parallel coding of a first sub-picture on a
first processing core and a second sub-picture on a second processing core.
See Iwata i-fi-180-82.
Second, Iwata teaches that data from one moving picture processing
unit is used for inter-frame prediction for another moving picture processing
unit. Therefore, the coding disclosed in Iwata is not independent around the
sub-pictures. See Iwata i-fi-140, 82. We have reviewed the Examiner's
findings and they do not address the aforementioned differences between the
claimed coding and the coding disclosed in the combination of Iwata and Jia,
and thus, also do not sufficiently address why claim 1 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the cited prior art
references.
Accordingly, Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection.
4
Appeal2017-010630
Application 14/664,992
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-10 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) On this record, claims 1-10 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-10 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
5