Ex Parte Zhou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

12337273 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/337,273 12/17/2008
139020 7590 09/28/2016
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP I Apple Inc,
WASHINGTON SQUARE, SUITE 1100
1050 CONNECTICUT A VE. N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20036-5304
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Xiaosong ZHOU
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.
13316-675401 3381
EXAMINER
TURCHEN, JAMES R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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):
eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XIAOSONG ZHOU and HSI-JUNG WU
Appeal2015-003900
Application 12/337,273
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9-20, and 22-27, which are all the claims pending
in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Apple Inc. App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 2, 8, and 21 have been cancelled. App. Br. Al -A9 (Claims
App'x).
Appeal2015-003900
Application 12/337,273
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' application relates to error mitigation techniques in video
coding systems involving transmission through data networks. Spec. ,-i 1.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as follows
with the disputed limitations italicized:
1. A video coding method comprising:
assigning frames of a video sequence to one of a plurality
of sub-channels to be transmitted to a decoder, wherein different
portions of the sequence are assigned to different sub-channels
and each portion is encoded only with reference to other frames
within the respective portion,
coding content of the video sequence according to
predictive coding techniques wherein, during normal operation,
prediction references of the coded frames in each sub-channel
reach only to reference frame(s) that are located within the same
sub-channel to which the respective coded frame has been
assigned,
during a transmission recovery mode, coding select frames
belonging to a first, failed sub-channel using different reference
frames from a second, good channel as a source of prediction,
and
transmitting the coded frames to a decoder in packets, each
packet containing a plurality of frames assigned to a common
sub-channel.
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-20, and 22-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Thukral (US 7,548,995 B2; June 16, 2009)
and Leung (US 2009/0245392 Al; Oct. 1, 2009). Final Act. 6-13.
2
Appeal2015-003900
Application 12/337,273
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We are not persuaded by
Appellants' contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own the
findings set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal
Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We
highlight the following additional points.
Claims 1 and 7
Appellants argue Thukral teaches sending information in multiple
streams and, upon detection of missing information, filling in the missing
information using identical packets from the duplicate stream. App. Br. 12.
Appellants argue replacing the missing information with corresponding
packets from a second stream is not the same as "coding select frames from
a first sub-channel using different reference frames from a second sub-
channel" to remedy an error during transmission recovery, as recited in
claim 1. Id. at 12-13. According to Appellants, because Thukral teaches a
duplicate, redundant backup stream, there are no frames in Thukral that exist
only in a portion assigned to a sub-channel but not in a portion assigned to
another sub-channel. Id. at 13. Therefore, Appellants argue, no data is
coded only with reference to other frames that exist only within the channel.
Id. at 13.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Thukral teaches a primary stream and a backup stream
which may be identical or different. Ans. 3 (citing Thukral 12:53-67).
3
Appeal2015-003900
Application 12/337,273
Thukral teaches the backup stream may, in some instances, contain generally
the same content as the primary stream, but not at the same level of detail.
Thukral 12:53-67. During normal operation, the backup stream is not
needed and, therefore, the primary stream is encoded only with reference to
other frames in that stream. See Final Act. 7 (citing Thukral, Figs. 1, 2, 4:9-
37). However, during transmission recovery mode, the backup stream is
used to correct errors in the primary stream. Id. Appellants' argument is
unpersuasive because the primary stream and backup stream are not
necessarily identical. Accordingly, we agree with and adopt the Examiner's
findings related to the disputed limitations and sustain the rejection of claims
1 and 7.
Claims 11, 18, and 20
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11, 18, and
20 for the same reasons as claims 1 and 7. See ,,L\ .. pp. Br. 14-15. For the
reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded by Appellants' contentions.
Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11, 18, and 20
because Thukral and Leung do not teach or suggest suspending decoding of
a first sub-channel while continuing decoding of a second sub-channel.
App. Br. 15. Appellants argue Thukral teaches that when there is a hole in
the primary stream, there is nothing to decode in a particular frame, but the
remaining portion of the stream is still decoded as usual. Id.
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Thukral teaches suspending decoding of the primary
channel when an error is detected. Ans. 6 (citing Thukral 4:9-37). Thukral
teaches decoding the backup stream to replace the missing data in the
4
Appeal2015-003900
Application 12/337,273
suspended, primary stream. Id. When the error is corrected, Thukral
teaches resuming decoding of the primary stream. Id. Decoding of the
primary stream is suspended while the backup stream is decoded to prevent
errors in the primary stream, which would defeat the purpose of using the
backup stream for error correction. Id. We, therefore, adopt the findings
and conclusions of the Examiner with respect to claims 11, 18, and 20, and
sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims.
CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellants
have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
unpatentable over Thukral and Leung. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claim 1. Appellants argue the patentability of independent claim 7 for the
same reasons as claim 1. See App. Br. 10. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 7 for the same reason as set forth above. \X/e also sustain
the rejections of dependent claims 3-6, 9, and 10, which were not argued
separately with particularity. See App. Br. 16.
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, Appellants
have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11 as
unpatentable over Thukral and Leung. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claim 11. Appellants argue the patentability of independent claims 18 and
20 for the same reasons as claim 11. See App. Br. 14-15. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claims 18 and 20 for the same reason as set forth
above. We also sustain the rejections of dependent claims 12-17, 19, and
22-27, which were not argued separately with particularity. See App. Br.
16.
5
Appeal2015-003900
Application 12/337,273
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-7, 9-20,
and 22-27.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6