Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 21, 2021

2020002793 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 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.
15/264,366 09/13/2016 Takeshi TSUKUBA HW726521 1435
77399 7590 10/21/2021
Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd
(for Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd)
Two Prudential Plaza Suite 4900
180 North Stetson Avenue
Chicago, IL 60601
EXAMINER
HODGES, SUSAN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/21/2021 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):
Chgpatent@leydig.com
aipatent@huawei.com
hwpatent@leydig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAKESHI TSUKUBA, TOMOHIRO IKAI, and
TOMOYUKI YAMAMOTO
Appeal 2020-002793
Application 15/264,366
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BETH Z. SHAW, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, 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 and 3–13, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. Claim 2 has been cancelled. 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). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Huawei
Technologies Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002793
Application 15/264,366

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an image decoding apparatus. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An image decoding apparatus for decoding hierarchical image
coded data including one or more layers, the apparatus comprising:
a non-Video Coding Layer (VCL) decoder configured (a) to
decode layer set information describing a hierarchical layer
configuration of a layer set and (b) to decode a layer set identifier for
identifying the layer set and an output layer flag for designating
whether a layer included in the layer set is an output layer, and to
derive output layer set information describing an output layer set that
includes at least one output layer,
wherein the output layer flag indicates that the
output layer is a target layer when the flag has a value of
one, and the output layer is not regarded as the target
layer when the flag has a value of zero and a total sum of
values of output layer flags of layers included in the
output layer set is at least one; and
a picture decoder configured to decode a picture of the output
layer included in the output layer set based on the output layer set
information.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Chen et al. (“Chen”) US 2014/0119437 A1 May 1, 2014
Suzuki et al. (“Suzuki”) US 2015/0281713 A1 Oct. 1, 2015

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–8, and 10–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen.
Appeal 2020-002793
Application 15/264,366

3
Claims 5, 9, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatenablte over Chen and Suzuki.
OPINION
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, 6–8, and 10–12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as being anticipated by Chen. Final Act. 4. We agree with Appellant
that the cited portions of Chen do not disclose all of the limitations arranged
or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.
[U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the
document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of
the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited
in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing
claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir.
2008).
Thus, it is not enough that the prior art reference discloses part
of the claimed invention, which an ordinary artisan might
supplement to make the whole, or that it includes multiple,
distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to
achieve the claimed invention.
Id.
We agree with Appellant that Chen does not disclose “the output layer
is not regarded as the target layer when the flag has a value of zero and a
total sum of values of output layer flags of layers included in the output
layer set is at least one.” See Appeal Br. 6. Rather, the cited portions of
Chen disclose that an output layer flag “equal to 0 may indicate the layer
with layer_id equal to j is not the target for output.” Chen ¶ 82. The cited
portions of Chen do not expressly or inherently disclose “and a total sum of
values of output layer flags of layers included in the output layer set is at
Appeal 2020-002793
Application 15/264,366

4
least one,” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner does not identify, on this
record, where Chen discloses a total sum of values of output layer flags, let
alone a total sum of values of layers included in the output layer set being at
least one when the output layer flag has a value of zero.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and for the
same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 23, 4, 6–8, and 10–
12. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 5, 9, and 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Suzuki, because the
Examiner has not shown that Suzuki cures Chen’s deficiencies, as discussed
above regarding the anticipation rejection of claim 1.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the rejections.
More specifically, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6–8, and
10–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Chen. We reverse the
rejection of claims 5, 9, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Chen and Suzuki.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4, 6–8,
10–12
102 Chen 1, 3, 4, 6–8,
10–12
5, 9, 13 103 Chen, Suzuki 5, 9, 13
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–13

Appeal 2020-002793
Application 15/264,366

5
REVERSED