Ex Parte ZhouDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 30, 201814577865 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/577,865 12/19/2014 23494 7590 09/04/2018 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED PO BOX 655474, MIS 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA 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-70446A 6508 EXAMINER OWENS, TSION B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2487 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/04/2018 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): 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 Appeal2018-002914 Application 14/577 ,865 Technology Center 2400 Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, RAMA G. ELLURU, and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20. 2 We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Texas Instruments Incorporated. App. Br. 2. 2 Appellant filed an Amendment, September 29, 2017 ("Amendment") cancelling claims 2, 4, and 6-20. Amendment 2. However, the Amendment was not entered by the Examiner. See Advisory Action, mailed October 11, 2017; see also Ans. 2--4 (discussing the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)). Because the Amendment was not entered, claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application. Appeal2018-002914 Application 14/577,865 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's Invention Appellant's invention generally relates to "a method and apparatus for a low complexity transform unit partitioning structure for High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)." Spec. ,r 6. Claim 1, which is illustrative of the claimed invention, reads as follows: 1. A method comprising: determining, with a coding device, a prediction unit size of a coding unit; and setting, with the coding device, transform unit sizes for a luminance component (Y) and chrominance components (U and V) based on whether the prediction unit size of the coding unit is 2Nx2N. Rejection Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(e) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2012/0106649 Al; published May 3, 2012) ("Wang"). Final Act. 4--5. ANALYSIS Appellant contends Wang fails to disclose "setting, with the coding device, transform unit sizes for a luminance component (Y) and chrominance components (U and V) based on whether the prediction unit size of the coding unit is 2N x 2N," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 3-5; Reply Br. 2-3. According to Appellant, Wang "describes a technique where 'a value of a [transform split flag (TSP)] for a TU can be inferred when the TU has a size that is larger than a maximum permitted size for the CU [or] 2 Appeal2018-002914 Application 14/577,865 when the TU corresponds to a smallest-sized TU for the CU.'" App. Br. 4 (citing Wang ,r 64) (brackets in original). Appellant argues Wang does not disclose "setting the size of a transform unit based on the size of a PU [prediction unit], much less setting the size of a transform unit based on whether the prediction unit size of the coding unit is 2N x 2N," as required by claim 1. Id. We agree. The Examiner finds: Wang discloses transform unit (TU) size is set to minimum allowed/permitted size of transform for the CU transform unit size and according to size of TU a luminance component (Y) and chrominance (U and V) partitioned. In general the coding unit (CU) includes one or more prediction unit (PU) indicating how to form prediction data for the CU. Also Wang teaches the CU size and large TU have a size of2N*2N, and prediction unit (PU) represents all or a portion of the corresponding coding unit (CU) which make PU size to be 2N*2N. Furthermore Wang teaches a CU of video data may include each of a luminance component (Y), a first chrominance component (U), and a second chrominance component (V) of the corresponding video data and PUs performed for each of the Y, U, and V components of a given CU of video data. Ans. 5 (citing Wang ,r,r 52-53, 56-59, 61, 64--66, 151-153, 186-187, and 199-200). We agree with the Examiner that Wang discloses that a coding unit may have a size of2N x 2N (Wang ,r 53) and that a coding unit generally includes one or more prediction units (Wang ,r 26). We also agree with the Examiner (Ans. 5) that Wang, therefore, discloses that a size of a prediction unit may be 2N x 2N. However, the Examiner's findings fail to show how Wang's disclosure of setting the transform unit size to a minimum allowed/permitted size of transform for the CU transform unit combined with Wang's disclosure that a size prediction unit may be 2N x 2N teaches "setting ... transform unit sizes for a luminance component (Y) and 3 Appeal2018-002914 Application 14/577,865 chrominance components (U and V) based on whether the prediction unit size of the coding unit is 2N x 2N" ( emphasis added), as recited in claim 1. Instead, we agree with Appellant that Wang is silent regarding setting the size of a transform unit based on whether the prediction unit size of the coding unit is 2N x 2N, as required by claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1; independent claims 3 and 5, which recite corresponding limitations; and claims 2, 4, and 6-20 which depend from claims 1, 3, and 5. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation