GOOGLE LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 10, 2022

2020005786 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2022)

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. 15/630,071 06/22/2017 Jingning Han GOGL-1202-B 7769 97818 7590 01/10/2022 Google LLC c/o Young Basile Hanlon & MacFarlane, P.C. 3001 West Big Beaver Rd., Ste. 624 Troy, MI 48084-3107 EXAMINER CARTER, RICHARD BRUCE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2485 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/10/2022 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 JINGNING HAN, YAOWU XU, and CHING-HAN CHIANG _____________ Appeal 2020-005786 Application 15/630,071 Technology Center 2400 ______________ Before ERIC S. FRAHM, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, 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 rejecting claims 1-14 and 21-26.2 See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies Google LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claims 15-20 were withdrawn from consideration. Final Act. 1. Appeal 2020-005786 Application 15/630,071 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, the claims are directed to encoding transform kernel candidates selected for blocks of a video frame. Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for encoding transform kernel candidates selected for blocks of a video frame, the method comprising: selecting one of a plurality of transform kernel candidates for transforming a residual block of a current block of the video frame, the selected transform kernel candidate including a vertical transform type associated with a vertical motion of the residual block and a horizontal transform type associated with a horizontal motion of the residual block; transforming the residual block according to the selected transform kernel candidate to produce a transform block including transform coefficients; quantizing the transform coefficients; responsive to determining that at least one of the quantized transform coefficients is a non-zero coefficient, identifying a probability model for encoding the selected transform kernel candidate, the probability model identified based on a first transform kernel candidate selected for an above neighbor transform block of the transform block and a second transform kernel candidate selected for a left neighbor transform block of the transform block; and encoding the selected transform kernel candidate according to the probability model. Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.) (emphasis added to disputed limitations). Appeal 2020-005786 Application 15/630,071 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is: Name Reference Date Jeon et al. (“Jeon”) WO 2011/099789 A2 Aug. 18, 2011 Kim et al. (“Kim”) US 2018/0041776 A1 Feb. 8, 2018 REJECTION Claims 1-14 and 21-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Kim and Jeon. Final Act. 4 (referencing Office Action dated July 3, 2019). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 4, July 3, 2019 Office Act. 3-9) in light of Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 6-13) that the Examiner has erred, as well as the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the Answer (Ans. 5-16) and Appellant’s reply in the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-5). With regard to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection based on Kim and Jeon, we agree with Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-14 and 21-26 because the Examiner has not shown sufficiently that Kim and Jeon teach or suggest all of the recited elements. See Appeal Br. 6-13. Based on our review of the record, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Kim and Jeon teaches identifying a probability model for encoding the selected transform kernel candidate, the probability model identified based on a first transform kernel candidate selected for an above neighbor transform block of the transform block and a second transform kernel candidate selected for a left neighbor transform block of the transform block; and encoding the Appeal 2020-005786 Application 15/630,071 4 selected transform kernel candidate according to the probability model, as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 8 and 21. See Appeal Br. 6-10; Reply Br. 2-4. The Examiner has not sufficiently identified where Kim teaches identifying a probability model to use for encoding the selection of a transform kernel for a transform block based on a first transform kernel candidate selected for an above neighbor transform block of the transform block and a second transform kernel candidate selected for a left neighbor transform block of the transform block. The Examiner finds that Kim teaches a “probability model” that is a block which is divided into smaller blocks such that addresses the features of “identifying a probability model to use for encoding (see Kim ’776, fig. 11, paragraphs [0061-0062], where the examiner notes that Kim ’776 performs the well-known encoding method that utilizes a “probability model” of fig. 11, that is block that is divided into smaller blocks, which is equivalent to the appellants' specification teaching of “probability model” in fig. 6, paragraph [0041]) the selection of a transform kernel for a transform block based on a first transform kernel candidate selected” (see Kim ’776, fig. 9 unit 910, paragraphs [0123] and [0148], where the first transform kernel application unit 910 may apply the first (e.g. “selection candidate”) transform kernel to an encoding block (e.g. “current block”") or encoding unit block) for an above neighbor transform block (see Kim ’776, fig. 11 unit 1140) of the transform block (see Kim ’776 fig. 11, paragraphs [0145] and [0148], where the examiner notes by referring to fig. 11 that transform is applied/selected on a top transform kernel block 1140 that is the above neighbor region included and generated from within the entire whole encoding transform block) and a second transform kernel candidate selected (see Kim ’776, fig. 14 unit S1420, paragraphs [0028] and [0171], where the video encoder applies a second (e.g. “selection candidate”) transform kernel) for a left neighbor transform block (see Kim ’776 fig. 11 unit 1130) of the Appeal 2020-005786 Application 15/630,071 5 transform block (see Kim ’776 fig. 11, paragraphs [0145], where the examiner notes by referring to fig. 11 that transform is applied/selected on left transform kernel block 1130 that is the left-side neighbor region included and generated from within the entire whole encoding transform block). Ans. 8-9 (emphasis added). However, the Examiner has not sufficiently identified how the many findings based on Kim’s teachings relate to one another such that they teach or suggest the disputed limitations as a whole. For example, the Examiner relies on Figure 11, with insufficient explanation, as teaching a first transform kernel candidate selected for an above neighbor transform block of the transform block and a second transform kernel candidate selected for a left neighbor transform block of the transform block. Id. Nor has the Examiner sufficiently identified how Kim teaches identifying a probability model for encoding the selected transform kernel candidate, the probability model identified based on a first transform kernel candidate selected for an above neighbor transform block of the transform block and a second transform kernel candidate selected for a left neighbor transform block of the transform block, as claim 1 requires. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c)(2) (“When a reference is complex or shows or describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable. The pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected claim specified.”). For these reasons, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Kim and Jeon teaches the disputed limitation is in error because it is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (examiner’s burden of proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence); see also Appeal 2020-005786 Application 15/630,071 6 In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not, because it may doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.”). For these reasons, on the record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Kim and Jeon teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of independent claim 1, as well as of independent claims 8 and 21. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 21, as well as dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 22-26. Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other contentions. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”). DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-14 and 21-26. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-14, 21-26 103 Kim, Jeon 1-14, 21-26 REVERSED