Intel Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 1, 2020

14837320 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 2020)

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.
14/837,320 08/27/2015 Sean J. Lawrence 01.P83155 8112
119829 7590 09/01/2020
Green, Howard, & Mughal LLP
5 Centerpointe Dr.
Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
EXAMINER
TARKO, ASMAMAW G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2020 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):
docketing@ghmip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEAN J. LAWRENCE
Appeal 2019-002967
Application 14/837,320
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. 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 Intel
Corporation. Appeal Brief 1.
Appeal 2019-002967
Application 14/837,320

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The claimed subject matter is directed to large group of pictures
(GOP) file streaming to wireless displays. Specification, Title. Claims 1–20
are pending; claims 1, 10, and 18 are independent. See pages 2–7 of
Response to Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief, filed November
13, 2018. Claims 5–7 and 14–16 are objected to objected to as being
dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any
intervening claims. Final Action 7. Claim 1 is reproduced below for
reference (emphasis added):
1. An image frame display source apparatus, comprising:
an audio/video (AV) pipeline to access an encoded video
stream from a storage device, the encoded video stream
comprising a group of pictures (GOP) including a plurality of
inter-predicted frames and a first intra-predicted frame;
one or more processors to modify the encoded video
stream with a selective transcoding of only a subset of the inter-
predicted frames in the GOP, the selective transcoding including
a transcoding of a first subset of the inter-predicted frames into
second intra-predicted frames that are inserted among others of
the inter-predicted frames encoded according to the GOP; and
a physical layer device to communicate the modified
encoded video stream through a transmission protocol.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Coban
Ammu
US 2010/0329338 A1
US 2011/0069757 A1
Dec. 30, 2010
Mar. 24, 2011

Appeal 2019-002967
Application 14/837,320

3
Claims 1–4, 8–13, and 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Ammu and Coban. Final Action 4.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Ammu and Coban teaches or
suggests the limitations of claim 1:
Ammu in view of C[o]ban ha[s] all the elements of the claims.
Ammu changes the P frames into an I frame[2] (pre-processing
not transcoding), C[o]ban shows the transcoding of one type of
frame into another types of frame. The teachings of Ammu and
C[o]ban can be combined with a known techni[que]
(programming) that is obvious to person of having ordinary
skilled in the art and the combination will yield a predictable
result which is the transcoding of a P frame in[to] an I frame.
Answer 13; Ammu Figs. 5–9, ¶¶ 81–87; Coban ¶¶ 8–11.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection is in error because the
Examiner provides “no basis to transcode only a subset of inter-predicted
frames of a GOP into second intra-predicted frames that are inserted among
others of the inter-predicted frames.” Appeal Brief 11. According to
Appellant, “[e]ven if Ammu is applied after first encoding . . . and the
frames then re-encoded according to the new GOP, that technique and any
system designed to perform such a technique would be different from the
subject matter presently claimed,” because “all encoded frames would be
first decoded, then the GOP rubric changed, and then all frames re-encoded
according to the new GOP rubric.” Reply Brief 4.

2 A “GOP . . . compris[es] many inter-predicted frame (P-frames) between
intra-predicted frames (I-frames).” Specification 2:30–31.
Appeal 2019-002967
Application 14/837,320

4
We are persuaded the Examiner errs. Claim 1 recites “a selective
transcoding of only a subset of the inter-predicted frames.” As explained by
Appellant’s Specification, selective transcoding will transcode “only a
portion or subset of the inter-predicted frames in the GOP,” which “may be
more efficient . . . and provide better quality than conventional (i.e., non-
selective) transcoding algorithms.” Specification 8:23–30. The Examiner
does not address the selective transcoding language of claim 1. Rather, the
Examiner’s combination explicitly requires transcoding all frames. See
Answer 11 (Finding the combination of Ammu and Coban “would simply
require the same analysis to be done after encoding and then re-encoding the
frame set (Transcoding).”). For at least this reason, we are persuaded the
Examiner’s rejection is in error. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385
(CCPA 1970) (“All words in a claim must be considered in judging the
patentability of that claim against the prior art.”).
We also agree with Appellant that the references do not teach or
suggest the recited “transcoding of a first subset of the inter-predicted frames
into second intra-predicted frames that are inserted among others of the
inter-predicted frames.” Reply Brief 5. Ammu, as cited by the Examiner,
teaches a method of generating new sets of GOPs (Ammu Figs. 7, 9) and
compares these results with conventional methods of generating sets of
GOPs (Ammu Figures 5, 6, 8). See Answer 14; Ammu ¶¶ 82–86 (describing
each new intra-predicted frame (I frame) location is based on, inter alia,
distance to other intra-predicted frames). The Examiner does not explain
why one of ordinary skill would modify Ammu to insert second intra-
predicted frames among frames of a GOP, as required by claim. See Final
Action 5; Answer 13. Absent sufficient rationale, the Examiner’s rejection
Appeal 2019-002967
Application 14/837,320

5
relies on impermissible hindsight. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A factfinder should be aware, of course, of the
distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant
upon ex post reasoning.”). Thus, we find the Examiner’s rejection is in error
for this additional reason.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1 and the dependents thereon. Independent claims 10 and
18 are commensurate in scope to independent claim 1 and are rejected for
the reasons discussed above; thus, we do not sustain the rejection of these
claims, and the claims depending thereon.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 8–13,
17–20
103 Ammu, Coban 1–4, 8–13,
17–20

REVERSED