GOOGLE LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 2, 20222021000101 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2022) Copy Citation 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. 15/807,622 11/09/2017 Jyrki Alakuijala GOGL-1253-A 1046 97818 7590 03/02/2022 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 03/02/2022 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 JYRKI ALAKUIJALA and ZOLTAN SZABADKA ________________ Appeal 2021-000101 Application 15/807,622 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LARRY J. HUME, and JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which are all claims pending in the application. 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. According to Appellant, Google LLC is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-000101 Application 15/807,622 2 INVENTION The claimed invention relates to encoding and decoding of image data, video stream data, or both for transmission or storage. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method comprising: generating, by a processor executing instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a reconstructed frame by decoding an encoded bitstream, wherein decoding includes: obtaining encoded block data from the encoded bitstream, the encoded block data corresponding to a current block from the reconstructed frame; generating reconstructed block data for the current block based on the encoded block data using transform coefficient continuity smoothing, wherein transform coefficient continuity smoothing includes: for a block boundary of the current block: in response to a determination that adjacent block data corresponding to an adjacent block spatially adjacent to the current block along the block boundary is available, performing transform coefficient continuity smoothing based on the current block, the adjacent block, and the block boundary; and including the reconstructed block data in the reconstructed frame; and outputting the reconstructed frame. Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Appeal 2021-000101 Application 15/807,622 3 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Alshin (US 2012/0195379 A1; published Aug. 2, 2012). Ans. 3-4; Final Act. 5. The Examiner rejects claims 2-9 and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Alshin and Kao (US 2017/0280163 A1; published Sept. 28, 2017). Ans. Final Act. 5-32. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Alshin teaches predicting a transformation coefficient such that smoothness between pixels of sub-blocks 2105, 2103, and 2104 of a current block and a neighboring block is optimized, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “performing transform coefficient continuity smoothing based on the current block, the adjacent block, and the block boundary” recited in claim 1. Ans. 4, 34 (citing Alshin ¶¶ 213, 214, Fig. 23); Final Act. 2 (citing Alshin ¶¶ 213, 214, Fig. 23). Appellant argues the cited portions of Alshin denote elements 2101 through 2105 as transformation coefficients rather than blocks or sub-blocks. Appeal Br. 6-7 (citing Alshin ¶¶ 213, 214, Fig. 23); Reply Br. 4 (Alshin ¶¶ 213, 214, Fig. 23). We agree with Appellant because the cited portions of Alshin explicitly refer to elements 2101 through 2105 as transformation coefficients. Alshin ¶¶ 213, 214, Fig. 23. The Examiner fails to explain adequately how Alshin’s transform coefficients disclose “blocks” or “sub- Appeal 2021-000101 Application 15/807,622 4 blocks” in a § 102(a)(2) context.2 Appeal Br. 6-7 (citing Alshin ¶¶ 213, 214, Fig. 23); Reply Br. 4 (Alshin ¶¶ 213, 214, Fig. 23). Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite similar features. And the Examiner relies on the same cited portions of Alshin to teach the italicized limitations on page 2 above. Ans. 4, 29. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of: (1) independent claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2); and (2) claims 2-9, 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. CONCLUSION Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 10 102(a)(2) Alshin 1, 10 2-9, 11-20 103 Alshin, Kao 2-9, 11-20 Overall Outcome 1-20 REVERSED 2 The Examiner relies upon the base discussion from the anticipation rejection of claim 1 for the obviousness rejection of claim 19. In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to determine whether the claimed subject matter of claims 1, 10, and 19 would have been obvious under § 103, i.e., whether “performing transform coefficient continuity smoothing based on the current block, the adjacent block, and the block boundary” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added), and as commensurately recited in claims 10 and 19 would have been obvious to a skilled artisan under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation