GOOGLE INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 29, 2021

2020002872 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 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.
15/671,595 08/08/2017 Ruijie Xu GOGL-1241-B 9167
97818 7590 12/29/2021
Google LLC
c/o Young Basile Hanlon & MacFarlane, P.C.
3001 West Big Beaver Rd., Ste. 624
Troy, MI 48084-3107
EXAMINER
HAGHANI, SHADAN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/29/2021 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 RUIJIE XU and DAKE HE
_______________

Appeal 2020-002872
Application 15/671,595
Technology Center 2400
_______________

Before JASON J. CHUNG, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–4, 7–11, 14–17, and 20. The Examiner has indicated that claims 5,
6, 12, 13, 18, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
See Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to
“applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies
Google LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-002872
Application 15/671,595

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to
“encoding and decoding a current block of video data.” Spec. ¶ 4. More
particularly, Appellant describes partitioning video data into a block of video
data comprising a plurality of elements. See Spec. ¶ 5. As set forth in the
Specification, a video stream includes a video sequence, which includes a
plurality of adjacent frames. Spec. ¶ 76. A frame may be divided into a
series of segments or planes, such as to allow for parallel processing. Spec.
¶ 76. Frames may further be subdivided into blocks of data (e.g.,
corresponding to pixels in a frame). Spec. ¶ 77; see also Fig. 3. When
processing a video block (i.e., encoding or decoding) a block of video data
may be partitioned into a plurality of groups of elements wherein the first
group of elements are processed (e.g., decoded) using a first scan order and a
second group of elements of the block are processed (e.g., decoded) using a
second scan order. Spec. ¶¶ 8–9. In addition, the second scan order may be
determined based on information in the first group of elements. See Spec.
¶ 48. Example scan orders include zig-zag, horizontal, vertical and diagonal
scan order. Spec. ¶ 168; see also Figs. 15A, 15B.
Claim 9 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics:
9. A method for decoding video comprising:
partitioning a block of video data into a plurality of groups
of elements;
decoding, using an entropy decoder, data from an encoded
bitstream to obtain, using a first scan order, elements of a first
group from the plurality of groups of elements, wherein the first
group includes elements forming a triangle in a comer of the
Appeal 2020-002872
Application 15/671,595

3
block, and wherein the triangle includes elements of a first row
of the block and elements of a first column of the block;
determining, based on the elements of the first group, a
second scan order, from a plurality of scan orders, for a second
group from the plurality of groups of elements, wherein the
plurality of scan orders includes at least one scan order that
differs from the fist [sic] scan order with respect to the first
group; and
decoding, using the entropy decoder, data from the
encoded bitstream to obtain, using the second scan order,
elements of the second group from the plurality of groups of
elements.

The Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Drugeon et al. (US 2011/0206135 A1;
Aug. 25, 2011) (“Drugeon”). Final Act. 2–4.
2. Claims 3, 11, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Drugeon and Horn et al. (US 9,832,475 B1;
Nov. 28, 2017) (“Horn”). Final Act. 5–6.
3. Claims 7, 8, 14, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Drugeon and Fu et al. (US 2016/0277746
A1; Sept. 22, 2016) (“Fu”). Final Act. 6–8.

ANALYSIS2
As an initial matter, Appellant argues the Examiner has not provided a
construction for the claim term “scan order” and has not established the level

2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
December 2, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed March 6, 2020
Appeal 2020-002872
Application 15/671,595

4
of ordinary skill in the art. Appeal Br. 5–6; Reply Br. 2–5.3 Appellant does
not propose either a construction for a scan order or a level of ordinary skill
in the art.
When construing claim terminology during prosecution before the
Office, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification, reading claim language in light of the
Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
As set forth in the Specification, “a video coding system may traverse
the transform block in a scan order and encode (e.g., entropy encode) the
quantized transform coefficients as the quantized transform coefficients are
respectively traversed (i.e., visited).” Spec. ¶ 90. Additionally, Appellant
describes that “[a] one-dimensional structure (e.g., an array) of quantized
transform coefficients can result from the traversal of the two-dimensional
quantized transform block using the scan order.” Spec. ¶ 90. Thus, a scan
order refers to the sequence in which elements within a block of data are
traversed for coding.
Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art,
[w]hile it is always preferable for the factfinder below to
specify the level of skill it has found to apply to the invention at
issue, the absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the
art does not give rise to reversible error “where the prior art

(“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed February 25, 2020 (“Ans.”);
and the Final Office Action, mailed August 5, 2019 (“Final Act.”), from
which this Appeal is taken.
3 Appellant has not included page numbers on the Reply Brief. For
references purposes herein, we assume the first page (with the title “REPLY
BRIEF”) is page 1 and the pages are consecutively numbered thereafter.
Appeal 2020-002872
Application 15/671,595

5
itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is
not shown.”
Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Litton
Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir.
1985)). Here, the Examiner indicates that the level of ordinary skill is
reflected in the relied upon prior art. See Ans. 15. We find the level of
ordinary skill in the art to be reflected in the cited references, and we
determine that no express statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art is
required.

Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that Drugeon discloses
“determining, based on the elements of the first group, a second scan order,
from a plurality of scan orders, for a second group from the plurality of
groups of elements,” as recited in claim 9. Appeal Br. 6–8; Reply Br. 5–9.
More particularly, Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not understand Drugeon’s frequency selective scan to be a scan order
distinct from a zig-zag scan order. Appeal Br. 6–7.
Drugeon generally relates to “compressing and decompressing video
data with improved coding efficiency.” Drugeon ¶ 1. Drugeon describes an
image coding method of coding an image on block basis comprising
transforming a two-dimensional array of pixels values to a current block to
be encoded into a two-dimensional array of transform coefficients and
“determining a scan order for scanning the transform coefficients of the two-
dimensional array.” Drugeon ¶ 39. Drugeon further describes the
determination of the scan order may be adaptive according to the
characteristics of the image. Drugeon ¶ 44. Moreover, Drugeon discloses
Appeal 2020-002872
Application 15/671,595

6
“the scan order may be determined by selecting a scan order from among a
plurality of predefined scan orders including a scan order of a frequency
selective scan in which only a subset of the transform coefficients of the
two-dimensional array is scanned.” Drugeon ¶ 47 (emphasis added); see
also Drugeon ¶ 61 (providing a similar disclosure of selecting an inverse
scan order from a plurality of predefined inverse scan orders including an
inverse frequency selective scan).
Additionally, Drugeon describes:
Preferably, the scan order is selected from a plurality of
predefined scan orders. One of the predefined scan orders may
be the zig-zag scan or any other fixedly defined scan. One of the
predefined scan orders may also be a frequency selective scan in
which only a subset of transformation coefficients is scanned
while the remaining coefficients are set to zero. The frequency
selective scan is not fixed, i.e., it may choose the transformation
coefficients to be scanned in an arbitrary way such as additional
signalling, or implicit determination, or using of other signalling
elements such as, for instance, quantization matrix.
Drugeon ¶ 85; see also Drugeon ¶ 136 (describing a plurality of scan orders
as including a zig-zag scan and “another one is a so called frequency
selective scan employed together with frequency selective coding (FSC)”).
Moreover, Drugeon discloses the scan order is determined adaptively based
on the values of the coefficients, preferably within the current block.
Drugeon ¶¶ 86–87.
Drugeon discloses that frequency selective coding “is based on the
observation that the human eye is less sensitive to high frequencies than to
lower frequencies.” Drugeon ¶ 137. Thus, Drugeon describes that
frequency selective coding only scans certain frequency parts of the input
signal. Drugeon ¶ 137. Further, Drugeon juxtaposes an “ordinary scan,
Appeal 2020-002872
Application 15/671,595

7
such as a zig-zag scan” from frequency selective scan. See Drugeon ¶¶ 146–
147, Fig. 8 (illustrating different resulting serial streams of coefficients), 9
(illustrating the different between a zig-zag scan and frequency selective
scan for a second group of elements).
Drugeon also discloses that a first group of elements are scanned in a
predetermined scan order (e.g., zig-zag scan) and based on the information
in the first group, a second scan order is determined. See Drugeon ¶¶ 147–
155, 174. For example, Drugeon describes that if the values of the second
and third transform coefficients are substantially equal, that the second
group of elements should continue to be scanned using a zig-zag scan order.
See Drugeon ¶¶ 175–177, Fig. 13. However, if the second transform
coefficient is greater than the third transform coefficient, then a vertical scan
order should be used for the second group of elements. See Drugeon
¶¶ 175–177, Fig. 13. Drugeon similarly describes selecting a second scan
order based on whether the sum of the absolute values of the transform
coefficients in the first scanned group exceed a predetermined threshold.
See Drugeon ¶¶ 181–184, Fig. 14.
Based on our review of Drugeon, we agree with the Examiner (see
Final Act. 3–4;4 Ans. 16–21) that Drugeon discloses “determining, based on
the elements of the first group, a second scan order, from a plurality of scan
orders, for a second group from the plurality of groups of elements,” as
recited in claim 9. For instance, as provided in the example of Figure 13,
Drugeon discloses a first scan order (i.e., a zig-zag scan order) is used to

4 The Examiner sets forth the specific findings with respect to independent
claim 1 and notes that the same grounds apply to independent claim 9. See
Final Act. 4.
Appeal 2020-002872
Application 15/671,595

8
scan a first group of elements and, based on those elements, a second scan
order (i.e., a vertical scan order) is selected. See Drugeon ¶¶ 175–177,
Fig. 13. Moreover, contrary to Appellant’s assertions, we find Drugeon
discloses that the frequency selective scan order is a different scan order
from the zig-zag scan order.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 9. For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1, which recites similar limitations and was not argued
separately. See Appeal Br. 9; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). In
addition, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 10, which
depend therefrom and were not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 5–9; see
also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein a shape of the first
group is selected based on a size of the block.”
Appellant argues that Drugeon, as relied on by the Examiner, merely
describes that the number of coefficients for decisions regarding enabling or
disabling of frequency selective scan differs for different block sizes, but
that Drugeon’s “number of coefficients” is not equivalent to the shape of the
first group. Appeal Br. 8.
We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive of error. Drugeon
describes that the sum of the absolute values of the coefficients scanned in
the first group of elements is compared to a threshold, which is then used to
determine a second scan order. See Drugeon ¶¶ 149–150. Drugeon
Appeal 2020-002872
Application 15/671,595

9
discloses that it is advantageous to specify the threshold differently for
different block sizes when the result of the comparison is used to determine
whether to enable or disable frequency selective scanning. Drugeon ¶ 150.
As the Examiner explains, Drugeon describes that as the block size changes,
the shape of the first group (generally a triangle) also changes. Ans. 23
(citing Drugeon, Figs. 9, 10, 11, 13). In particular, Figure 13 of Drugeon
illustrates a shape of a first group identified by blocks (1303, 1304, and
1305), whereas Figure 9, a larger block size, illustrates a first group
identified by the 10 shaded blocks.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.

Claim 16
Appellant argues that Drugeon fails to disclose:
encode, using an entropy encoder using a first scan order,
elements of a first group from the plurality of groups of elements
. . . determine, based on the elements of the first group, a second
scan order, from a plurality of scan orders, for a second group
from the plurality of groups of elements, wherein the plurality of
scan orders includes at least one scan order that differs from the
fist scan order with respect to the first group; and encode, using
the entropy encoder using the second scan order, elements of the
second group from the plurality of groups of elements,
as recited by independent claim 16. Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 10–11. In
particular, Appellant argues that Drugeon describes that all the coefficients
of a block are coded using a single scan order and that any switching
between scan orders is performed on a per-block basis. Appeal Br. 10
(citing Drugeon ¶¶ 142, 150, Fig. 10); see also Reply Br. 10–11.
In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Figure 10 of
Drugeon describes determining the scan order for the remaining elements in
Appeal 2020-002872
Application 15/671,595

10
a block based on the sum of the absolute values of the three coefficients (i.e.,
c1, c2, and c3) in the first group. Ans. 24 (citing Drugeon, Fig. 10); see also
Drugeon ¶¶ 149–150. In particular, Drugeon describes if the sum is below a
threshold value, then frequency selective scanning is enabled for the
remaining elements of the block (the first group was scanned using a zig-zag
scan order). Drugeon ¶ 150. Thus, Drugeon discloses determining a second
scan order, based on the elements in the first group, wherein the second scan
order (e.g., the frequency selective scan) is different from the first scan order
(i.e., the zig-zag scan).
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 16.

Claims 3, 11, and 17
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites that “the first group
includes at least one element from: the first row outside of the triangle; the
first column outside of the triangle; or the block outside the first row and
outside the first column.”
The Examiner finds Drugeon discloses at least one element from a
block outside the first row and first column. Final Act. 5 (citing Drugeon,
Fig. 9 (illustrating 3 elements in the first group outside the first row and first
column)). The Examiner further finds Horn teaches elements from either the
first row or the first column outside of the triangle. Final Act. 5 (citing
Horn, col. 11, l. 35–col. 13, l. 35).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proposed combination of
Drugeon and Horn is improper because “there does not appear to be any
Appeal 2020-002872
Application 15/671,595

11
scan order that can satisfy the proposed combination without violating the
principles of operation of Drugeon and Horn.” Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 12.
In particular, Appellant asserts that the proposed combination would
contradict the operation of Horn because the efficiencies of Horn are
achieved by transmitting each category separately. Appeal Br. 10.
Moreover, Appellant argues if the full top row and first column of
coefficients were included with coefficients c1, c2, and c3 of Figure 10 of
Drugeon, “then the zig-zag scan order could not be used.” Appeal Br. 10.
As an initial matter, claim 3 only requires that the first group include
at least one element from either the first row outside of the triangle; the first
column outside of the triangle; or the block outside the first row and outside
the first column. We agree with the Examiner that Drugeon describes
including at least one element outside of the first row and first column. See
Drugeon, Fig. 9; see also Ans. 27. Thus, Appellant’s arguments are not
persuasive of Examiner error. See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1302
(CCPA 1976) (Board limiting affirmance of obviousness rejection to three
of the four references cited by the Examiner is not new grounds).
Further, we disagree that the Examiner’s proposed combination of
modifying Drugeon with Horn’s teaching of transmitting the whole top row
and first column (along with Drugeon’s coefficients c1, c2, and c3) is
contrary to the operation of Drugeon. As the Examiner explains, Drugeon
could still perform a zig-zag scan, similar to Appellant, of the first group
even if the first group included the top row and first column. See Ans. 30
(citing Spec. ¶ 177, Fig. 15A).
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3.
Appeal 2020-002872
Application 15/671,595

12
Additionally, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 17,
which recite similar limitations and were not argued separately. See Appeal
Br. 10; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Claims 7, 14, and 20
Claim 14 depends from claim 9 and is reproduced below:
14. The method of claim 9, wherein determining, based on the
elements of the first group, the second scan order for the second
group from the plurality of groups of elements comprises:
determining a first count of non-zero elements in a portion
of the first group below a main diagonal of the block and at or
above an anti-diagonal of the block;
determining a second count of non-zero elements in a
portion of the first group above the main diagonal of the block
and at or above the anti-diagonal of the block; and
determining the second scan order based on the first count
and the second count.
Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s proposed combination of
Drugeon and Fu fails to teach “determining a first count of non-zero
elements in a portion of the first group below a main diagonal of the block
and at or above an anti-diagonal of the block.” Appeal Br. 11; Reply
Br. 13–14. In particular, Appellant argues Fu’s teaching of whether certain
elements are equal to zero is not equivalent to determining a count of non-
zero elements. Appeal Br. 11.
As the Examiner explains, the recited “first count” refers to the count
of non-zero elements in the first column of the block, whereas the recited
“second count” refers to the count of non-zero elements in the first row of
the block. Ans. 32. As the Examiner further explains, the value of AC10 of
Fu, as applied to Drugeon, affects the recited first count and the value of
Appeal 2020-002872
Application 15/671,595

13
AC01 of Fu, as applied to Drugeon, affects the recited second count.
Ans. 32–33. The Examiner finds Fu teaches determining whether these
values a non-zero (see Fu ¶¶ 103–104), and therefore teaches or suggests
determining a count of non-zero elements in a portion of the first group.
Ans. 32–34.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and reasoning. Moreover, we
disagree with Appellant (see, e.g., Appeal Br. 11) that the Examiner’s
proposed combination of Drugeon and Fu is the result of improper hindsight
reasoning. Instead, the Examiner’s proposed combination is not based on
information gleaned only from Appellant’s Specification, but is found in
Fu’s teaching that using the texture direction to determine which coefficients
to set to zero improves compression efficiency without affecting the
subjective quality of the image being processed. See Ans. 33 (citing Fu
¶¶ 109, 115).
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14. For
similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 20,
which recite similar limitations and were not argued separately. See Appeal
Br. 11; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Claims 8 and 15
Claim 15 depends from claim 9 and is similar to claim 14 except that
the “count of non-zero elements” recited in claim 14 is a “sum of
magnitudes of elements” in claim 15. Claim 8 recites commensurate
limitations.
Appeal 2020-002872
Application 15/671,595

14
In rejecting claim 15,5 the Examiner finds, in relevant part, that
Drugeon teaches a sum of magnitudes of elements, and relies on Fu to teach
the location of the elements (i.e., in a portion of the first group below a main
diagonal of the block and at or above an anti-diagonal). Final Act. 8 (citing
Drugeon ¶¶ 153–154, Fig. 11; Fu ¶¶ 102–105).
Appellant argues that “[r]eplacing the summation from Drugeon with
the comparison described in Fu would invalidate the principle of operation
of Drugeon.” Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 14–17.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error at least because the
Examiner’s proposed combination does not replace the summation of
Drugeon with the zero/non-zero comparison of Fu. See Final Act. 7–8.
Rather, the Examiner relies on Fu for the limited teaching of the location of
the elements (i.e., in a portion of the first group below a main diagonal of the
block and at or above an anti-diagonal). See Ans. 38.
Further, we disagree with Appellant (see Appeal Br. 12) that there
would be no motivation to combine Fu with Drugeon. “[T]he law does not
require that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the
inventor.” In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see Outdry
Techs. Corp. v. Geox S.p.A., 859 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “[A]ny
need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and
addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining” references.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). Here, the Examiner
has set forth “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to

5 The Examiner’s findings are directed to the rejection of claim 8. Final
Act. 7–8. However, the Examiner relies on the same findings in rejecting
claim 15. See Final Act. 8.
Appeal 2020-002872
Application 15/671,595

15
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In particular, the Examiner determines an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Fu with Drugeon to
achieve an improved compression efficiency. See Ans. 39.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15. For
similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8.

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, and
16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(a)(1).
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 3, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15,
17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 9,
10, 16
102 Drugeon 1, 2, 4, 9,
10, 16

3, 11, 17 103 Drugeon, Horn 3, 11, 17
7, 8, 14, 15,
20
103 Drugeon, Fu 7, 8, 14,
15, 20

Overall
Outcome
1–4, 7–11,
14–17, 20

Appeal 2020-002872
Application 15/671,595

16

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED