Google Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 14, 2021

2020002797 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/921,378 10/23/2015 Juha Pekka Maaninen GOGL-1015-C 1055
97818 7590 09/14/2021
Google LLC
c/o Young Basile Hanlon & MacFarlane, P.C.
3001 West Big Beaver Rd., Ste. 624
Troy, MI 48084-3107
EXAMINER
LEE, JIMMY S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2021 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):
audit@youngbasile.com
docketing@youngbasile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUHA PEKKA MAANINEN
Appeal 2020-002797
Application 14/921,378
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and BETH Z. SHAW,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a) (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Google
LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-002797
Application 14/921,378
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to inter frame candidate selection for a video
encoder. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method, comprising:

identifying a current block from a current input frame from
an input video stream;

generating, by a processor in response to instructions stored
on a non-transitory computer readable medium, an encoded block
by encoding the current block, wherein encoding the current block
includes determining an inter-coding candidate motion vector,
wherein determining the inter-coding candidate motion vector
includes:

identifying a plurality of motion vectors, wherein the
plurality of motion vectors includes a context motion vector
identified from a block neighboring the current block in the current
input frame, a zero valued motion vector, and an estimated motion
vector based on the current block and a reference frame,

determining a plurality of cost values by determining a cost
value for each respective motion vector from the plurality of
motion vectors, wherein determining the cost value for a motion
vector from the plurality of motion vectors includes:

determining a distortion measurement for encoding the
current block using the motion vector;
determining an estimated encoding cost for encoding
the current block using the motion vector;

identifying a weighting value; and
determining the cost value as a sum of the distortion
measurement and a product of the weighting value and the
estimated encoding cost, and
Appeal 2020-002797
Application 14/921,378
3

identifying a motion vector from the plurality of motion
vectors having a minimal cost value as the inter-coding candidate
motion vector;

including the encoded block in an output bitstream; and

storing or transmitting the output bitstream.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Lainema US 2003/0202594 A1 Oct. 30, 2003
Booth et al. US 2005/0129122 A1 June 16, 2005
Drezner US 2005/0276326 A1 Dec. 15, 2005
Nakagomi et al. US 2007/0019729 A1 Jan. 25, 2007
Liu et al. US 2008/0212676 A1 Sept. 4, 2008
Po et al. US 2008/0243971 A1 Oct. 2, 2008
Bae et al. US 2011/0158319 A1 June 30, 2011
Sekiguchi et al. US 2012/0082213 A1 Apr. 5, 2012
Karczewicz et al. US 2012/0236931 A1 Sept. 20, 2012
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, and 12 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Sekiguchi in view of Liu.
Claim 2 stands stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sekiguchi in view of Liu in view of Booth.
Claim 4 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sekiguchi in view of Liu in view of Karczewicz.
Claim 5 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sekiguchi in view of Liu in view of Karczewicz and Po.
Appeal 2020-002797
Application 14/921,378
4
Claim 6 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sekiguchi in view of Liu in view of Karczewicz and
Drezner.
Claims 7, 8, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Sekiguchi in view of Liu in view of Nakagomi.
Claim 9 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sekiguchi in view of Liu in view of Bae.
Claims 10, 11, 13, and 14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sekiguchi in view of Liu in view of
Lainema.
Claims 15 and 17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sekiguchi in view of Liu, Karczewicz, Marta, Po,
and Drezner.
Claim 16 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sekiguchi in view of Liu, Karczewicz, Po, Drezner, and
Booth.
Claim 18 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sekiguchi in view of Liu, Karczewicz, Po, Drezner, and
Nakagomi.
Claim 19 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sekiguchi in view of Liu, Karczewicz, Po, Drezner, and
Bae.
Appeal 2020-002797
Application 14/921,378
5
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 1, 3, and 12
With respect to illustrative claim 1, Appellant argues that the
combination of the Sekiguchi and Liu references do not teach all of the
elements of illustrative independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 12. Specifically,
Appellant argues that the Sekiguchi and Liu references do not disclose
“determining an estimated encoding cost for encoding the current block
using the motion vector,” as recited by independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 12.
Appellant also contends that the Examiner’s reliance upon the Sekiguchi
reference to teach or suggest the claimed “determining an estimated
encoding cost for encoding the current block using the motion vector.”
Appeal Br. 13. Appellant further contends that claim 1 does not recite a
“coding cost estimation for a motion vector,” and one skilled in the art, in
view of the Specification, would not interpret “determining an estimated
encoding cost for encoding the current block using the motion vector” as
“determining a coding cost estimation for a motion vector.” Appeal Br. 13.
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s argument and relies upon a
broad claim interpretation of “estimated motion vector.” Ans. 27. The
Examiner finds that the claimed invention defines “estimated motion vector”
based on the current block and a reference frame. Ans. 27. The Examiner
finds there is no additional disclosure about what is referred to regarding the
“estimated motion vector” in the claim aside from being applied to other
steps in the claimed invention, but no description of the “estimated motion
vector” itself. Ans. 27.
The Examiner finds that the “estimated motion vector” is defined with
respect to “other steps in the claimed invention” and the Examiner limits the
Appeal 2020-002797
Application 14/921,378
6
interpretation of the claimed “estimated motion vector.” Ans. 27. The
Examiner further finds that the “estimated motion vector” as being only in
relation to the current block and reference frame. Ans. 27. The Examiner
finds
[t]he teaching of Sekiguchi does teach this since the motion
prediction modes relate to motion vectors that are evaluated
using a cost J derived from a code amount R of the motion vector
and amount D of prediction error based on a reference image
stored for the unit block, Sekiguchi ¶ 74. This cost estimation
occurs for each motion prediction mode and their related motion
vectors, Sekiguchi ¶ 75. Since the cost for a motion vector of a
prediction mode for a block is based on the reference image, it
still satisfies the conditions for what particularly is being
claimed. It is clear that the teaching of Sekiguchi can teach still
the as claimed “estimated motion vector.”
Ans. 27–28.
The Examiner finds that paragraph 75 of the Sekiguchi reference
teaches the modes have associated motion vectors (Ans. 28), but we find no
express support for the Examiner’s finding of modes and motion vectors
where the cost is determined for each of the plurality of motion vectors.
We note that the Sekiguchi reference defines “predictive efficiency is
defined by the following cost J which is derived from both the total code
amount R of motion vectors within the motion prediction unit block,”
(Sekiguchi ¶ 74) and the “one of the division patterns mc_mode0 to
mc_mode7 should be used for the motion prediction unit block in question
to provide the highest predictive efficiency,” (Sekiguchi ¶ 73) where the
“each of the division patterns mc_mode0 to mc_mode7 shown in FIG. 4,”
(Sekiguchi ¶ 73; see also Sekiguchi ¶ 59). But we cannot agree with the
Examiner that the Sekiguchi reference expressly supports the Examiner’s
generalized findings.
Appeal 2020-002797
Application 14/921,378
7
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s responses do not refute or
address Appellant’s argument. Reply Br. 7.2 We agree with Appellant and
find that although the Examiner finds that “[t]his cost estimation occurs for
each motion prediction mode and their related motion vectors, Sekiguchi
¶ 75” (Ans. 27), we disagree with the Examiner’s specific factual findings in
support thereof. Rather, we find that paragraph 73 of the Sekiguchi
reference discloses
[f]undamentally, in this process, the predicting unit detects an
optimum motion vector in each divided region within a specified
movement search range for each of the division patterns mc_mode0 to
mc_mode7 shown in FIG. 4, and finally determines which one of the
division patterns mc_mode0 to mc_mode7 should be used for the
motion prediction unit block in question to provide the highest
predictive efficiency

and a subsequent total cost is determined. Therefore, the Examiner has not
shown determining a cost for each “a plurality of cost values by determining
a cost value for each respective motion vector from the plurality of motion
vectors” and “determining an estimated encoding cost for encoding the
current block using the motion vector,” as claimed.
Appellant further argues that the combination of Sekiguchi and Liu
does not disclose “identifying a motion vector from the plurality of motion
vectors having a minimal cost value as the inter-coding candidate motion
vector,” as recited by independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 13 (emphasis added).
Appellant also argues that the Sekiguchi reference indicates that “the
predicting unit outputs the motion prediction mode, the motion vector, and
the prediction error signal . . . as a final solution,” and there is nothing in the

2 Appellant’s Reply Brief does not include page numbers, and we count
dictates from the cover page being page 1.
Appeal 2020-002797
Application 14/921,378
8
Sekiguchi reference that teaches, suggests, or implies that the motion vector
output at ST5 is in any way an “inter-coding candidate motion vector.”
Appeal Br. 13–14 (emphasis added).
In response to Appellant’s arguments regarding the “candidate motion
vector,” the Examiner finds
it needs to be recognized that the motion vectors subject to cost
determination are based on a reference image for the unit block
being motion predicted, i.e. cost J derived from a code amount R
of the motion vector and amount D of prediction error based on
a reference image stored for the unit block, Sekiguchi ¶ 74. This
cost estimation occurs for each motion prediction mode and their
related motion vectors, Sekiguchi ¶ 75. It is from the motion
prediction modes that have had a j cost determined which are
chosen from to determine the mode and corresponding motion
vector with the smallest j cost, Sekiguchi ¶ 78. When the
determination is combined with the fact Sekiguchi teaches the
identified plurality of motion vectors which include estimated
motion vectors based on the current block and a reference frame,
it should be understood that the motion vector with the minimal
cost value is identified when Sekiguchi “determines the solution
which provides the smallest cost j.”
Ans. 28.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s “discussion [] is unclear and
does not appear to refute, or even address, the Appellant’s argument. (See
Examiner’s Answer p. 27-28).” Reply Br. 7. We agree with Appellant and
find that the Examiner has not specifically addressed the limitation of the
“candidate motion vector” in independent claim 1 in the Examiner’s
Answer.
Because we find Appellant’s arguments to be persuasive or error in
the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness, we do not address Appellant’s
additional arguments for patentability regarding illustrative claim 1.
Appeal 2020-002797
Application 14/921,378
9

Independent claims 15 and 20
The Examiner relies upon the base combination of the Sekiguchi and
Liu references and to teach and suggest the similar limitations found in
illustrative independent claim 1. Final Act. 20, 25. Although independent
claims 15 and 20 have further details regarding the determining the cost
values for each respective motion vector and the step of “identifying a
motion vector from the plurality of motion vectors having a minimal cost
value as the inter-coding candidate motion vector,” but the Examiner has
merely rejected the claims based upon the prior discussions which we found
to be insufficient to show that the base combination teaches or suggests
these claim limitations. As a result, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner’s factual findings and ultimate conclusion of obviousness are
based upon insufficient factual findings to support the Examiner’s ultimate
conclusion of obviousness.
Dependent claims 2–14 and 16–19
With respect to each of the dependent claims, the Examiner relies
upon the base combination with the addition of additional prior art
references, but the Examiner has not identified how the additional prior art
references remedy the noted deficiency discussed above. As a result, we
agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s factual findings and ultimate
conclusion of obviousness are based upon insufficient evidence to support
the Examiner’s ultimate conclusion of obviousness.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections are reversed.

Appeal 2020-002797
Application 14/921,378
10
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 12 103(a) Sekiguchi, Liu, 1, 3, 12
2 103(a) Sekiguchi, Liu,
Booth
2
4 103(a) Sekiguchi, Liu,
Karczewicz
4
5 103(a) Sekiguchi, Liu,
Karczewicz, Po
5
6 103(a) Sekiguchi, Liu,
Karczewicz,
Drezner
6
7, 8, 20 103(a) Sekiguchi, Liu,
Nakagomi
7, 8, 20
9 103(a) Sekiguchi, Liu,
Bae
9
10, 11, 13,
14
103(a) Sekiguchi, Liu,
Lainema.
10, 11, 13,
14
15, 17 103(a) Sekiguchi, Liu,
Karczewicz, Po,
Drezner
15, 17
16 Sekiguchi, Liu,
Karczewicz, Po,
Drezner, Booth

16
18 103(a) Sekiguchi, Liu,
Karczewicz, Po,
Drezner,
Nakagomi
18
19 103(a) Sekiguchi. Liu,
Karczewicz, Po,
Drezner, Bae
19
Overall
Outcome
1–20
REVERSED