Lei Zhang

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 2, 2021

2020002095 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 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.
13/545,261 07/10/2012 Lei Zhang 106861-0469 6843
121312 7590 08/02/2021
Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation
3000 K Street N.W
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20007-5109
EXAMINER
BENNETT, STUART D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2021 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):
cmckenna@foley.com
ipdocketing@foley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEI ZHANG
Appeal 2020-002095
Application 13/545,261
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, 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 16, 17, 19, 21–23, and 27–37. 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 Avago
Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002095
Application 13/545,261

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “video coding systems and methods that
include a single encoding engine that shares video coding information
among plural, real-time, parallel encoding operations to provide multiple
encoded streams.” Spec. ¶ 10. The disclosure explains that “motion vector
search results (e.g., motion vectors, partitions of one coding unit or one
macroblock, motion vector search range, etc.)” and “mode decisions, such as
inter or intra prediction mode for the coding unit or macroblock, and intra
prediction direction if intra prediction is selected for the coding unit or
macroblock” are included in the video coding information. Id.
Claims 16, 21, and 23, reproduced below, illustrate the claimed
subject matter (with disputed limitations emphasized in italics):
16. A method, comprising:
receiving, at a single encoding engine, an input video
stream; and
generating, by the single encoding engine, in parallel, a
plurality of streams comprising a first encoded stream
according to a first version of profile and level and a second
encoded stream according to a second version of the profile and
level, the second encoded stream being generated using video
coding information used to generate the first encoded stream,
and the first version of the profile and level and the second
version of the profile and level differing in either the profile, the
level, or a combination of both the profile and the level,
wherein the generating of the second encoded stream
comprises performing motion search on the second encoded
stream using a luma bi-prediction size that is limited to a
minimum luma bi-prediction size specified for the first encoded
stream when the level of the profile and level associated with
the second encoded stream is lower than a threshold level and
the level of the profile and level associated with the first
encoded stream is equal to or above the threshold level.
Appeal 2020-002095
Application 13/545,261

3
21. A system, comprising:
a single encoding engine configured to:
receive an input video stream; and
generate, in parallel, a first encoded stream having
a first frame rate and a second encoded stream having a
second frame rate from the input video stream, the first
frame rate being higher than the second frame rate,
wherein the generating of the second encoded
stream comprises:
identifying a first Group of Pictures (GOP)
associated with the first encoded stream and
identifying a second GOP associated with the
second encoded stream; selecting a second picture
from the second GOP, the selected second picture
having a corresponding first picture in the first
GOP;
determining that the corresponding first
picture in the first GOP uses a first reference
picture that is available in the first GOP and absent
from the second GOP; and responsive to the
corresponding first picture in the first GOP using
the first reference picture that is available in the
first GOP and absent from the second GOP,
deriving motion vectors for the selected second
picture in the second GOP by scaling motion
vectors associated with the corresponding first
picture in the first GOP by:
identifying a first temporal distance between
the corresponding first picture in the first GOP
and a second reference picture which is preceding
to the first reference picture that is available in the
first GOP and absent from the second GOP, the
second reference picture available in both the first
GOP and the second GOP,
identifying a second temporal distance
between the corresponding first picture in the first
Appeal 2020-002095
Application 13/545,261

4
GOP and the first reference picture that is
available in the first GOP and absent from the
second GOP,
determining a factor corresponding to a
ratio between the first temporal distance and the
second temporal distance, and
scaling the motion vectors associated with
the corresponding first picture in the first GOP to
derive the motion vectors for the selected second
picture in the second GOP using the determined
factor.
23. A method, comprising:
receiving, at a single encoding engine, an input video
stream; and
generating, by the single encoding engine, in parallel, a
plurality of streams comprising a first encoded stream having a
first version of a video characteristic and a second encoded
stream having a second version of the video characteristic, the
first version of the video characteristic and the second version
of the video characteristic differing in at least a value of the
video characteristic,
wherein the second encoded stream is generated using
video coding information used to generate the first encoded
stream, the video coding information comprising a mode
decision for inter prediction or intra prediction, and
wherein an intra prediction mode decision of each
macroblock corresponding to the first encoded stream is used
for the second encoded stream when a same intra picture is
shared between the first encoded stream and the second
encoded stream, the intra prediction mode decision of the
respective macroblock comprising a determination of an intra
prediction direction for the respective macroblock.
Appeal Br. 31–33 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-002095
Application 13/545,261

5
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Sarna US 7,809,061 B1 Oct. 5, 2010
Sun US 2006/0013305 A1 Jan. 19, 2006
Cha US 2006/0165301 A1 July 27, 2006
Hannuksela US 2013/0170561 A1 July 4, 2013
Seregin US 2013/0322538 A1 Dec. 5, 2013
H.264 Advanced video coding for generic
audiovisual services,
Recommendation ITU-T H.264, pp.
1–657
Jan. 2012

REJECTIONS
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement. Final Act. 8.
Claims 16, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sarna and H.264. Final Act. 9–13.
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sarna, Sun, and Seregin. Final Act. 13–18.
Claims 23, 27–32, and 34–37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Sarna and Hannuksela. Final Act. 18–25.
Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sarna, Hannuksela, Sun, and Seregin. Final Act. 25–27.
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sarna, Sun, and Cha. Final Act. 27–32.

Appeal 2020-002095
Application 13/545,261

6
OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief that the Examiner has
erred, as well as the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the
Appeal Brief. We concur with the arguments raised by Appellant and
emphasize the following.
SECTION 112 REJECTION
Regarding independent claims 21 and 22, the Examiner finds that the
Specification does not disclose the recited “identifying a first temporal
distance . . . identifying a second temporal distance . . . and identifying a
factor” and therefore, the claims fail to comply with the written description
requirement. Final Act. 8. The Examiner specifically finds
Concerning claim 21, the specification in ¶¶ [0023] and [0024]
define a ratio in terms of distances, but does not disclose the
steps of obtaining the information. The amendments to claim
21 incorporate identifying a first temporal distance . . .
identifying a second temporal distance . . . and identifying a
factor . . . which is not disclosed in ¶¶ [0023] and [0024]. The
disclosure does provide an example as to what the factor by
which the motion vector is scaled by corresponds do, but not
any means by which the information is obtained.
Id.
Appellant argues that the Specification supports the recited limitations
“in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way
that shows that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention at the
time of filing.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant points to paragraphs 23, 24, 38, and
39, as well Figures 2A, 2B, 4A, and 4B, and argues that these portions of the
disclosure provide support for the claim 21 recited features. Id. Appellant
Appeal 2020-002095
Application 13/545,261

7
specifically points to the disclosure of temporal distance between different
frames and the ratio of those distances for the specific disclosure in those
portions of the Specification and argues that “a person of ordinary skill in
the art understands that the ‘factor’ is obtained based on the ‘ratio’ of the
temporal distance 208 to the temporal distance 206 (paragraph [0023]).” Id.
at 10.
We agree with Appellant that Appellant’s original disclosure [suggest
citing specific paragraphs] conveys with reasonable clarity to ordinarily
skilled artisans that Appellant possessed the claimed invention, including a
ratio of temporal distances. “[T]he description requirement does not demand
any particular form of disclosure, or that the specification recite the claimed
invention in haec verba.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d
1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (internal citations omitted). Rather,
“the test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied
upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had
possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad, 598
F.3d at 1351.
Further, as Appellant argues that “such features are well known in the
art, and that their omission from the specification for conciseness, written as
it is to a person of ordinary skill in the art, does not suggest that the
[inventor] lacked possession of the invention,” Reply Br. 4, the instant
disclosure satisfy the written description requirement. See Spec. ¶¶ 23, 24,
38, 39. We therefore agree with Appellant that these descriptions would
reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art the necessary
disclosure for “‘identifying a first temporal distance’ between a picture and a
reference picture, ‘identifying a second temporal distance’ between the
Appeal 2020-002095
Application 13/545,261

8
picture and another reference picture, and ‘determining a factor
corresponding to a ratio between the first temporal distance and the second
temporal distance.’” See Reply Br. 3–4.
Thus, we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
Specification provides written description support for the disputed limitation
and that the Examiner erred by rejecting the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a), or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
SECTION 103 REJECTION
Claim 23
As reproduced supra, claim 23 requires (emphasis added):
the video coding information comprising a mode
decision for inter prediction or intra prediction, and
wherein an intra prediction mode decision of each
macroblock corresponding to the first encoded stream is used
for the second encoded stream when a same intra picture is
shared between the first encoded stream and the second
encoded stream,
the intra prediction mode decision of the respective
macroblock comprising a determination of an intra prediction
direction for the respective macroblock.
See Appeal Br. 12.
In rejecting claim 23, the Examiner finds that the features of the
above-quoted limitation are taught or suggested by the combination of Sarna
and Hannuksela. Final Act. 18–20 (citing Sarna 3:12–14, 5:57–6:13, 6:15–
16, 6:29–33, Figs. 3–6; Hannuksela ¶¶ 5, 69, 82, 87; Ans. 14–16. Appellant
contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 because:
Appeal 2020-002095
Application 13/545,261

9
As shown in FIG. I of Hannuksela above, a sequence of
coded pictures (i.e., I pictures, P pictures, B pictures) is
organized into two Group of Pictures (GOPs) 214 arranged in
display order which is indicated by the picture order count
(POC) 210. See Hannuksela, paragraph [0082]. . . . Hannuksela
describes that “Pictures of a higher temporal level may only use
pictures of the same or lower temporal level for inter-picture
prediction” See Hannuksela, paragraph [0082].
However, neither FIG. 1 of Hannuksela nor other parts of
Hannuksela disclose or suggest the above recited features of
Claim 23, for at least the reasons that (1) FIG. 1 of Hannuksela,
which is cited by the Final Action for disclosing Claim 23,
merely describes inter-picture prediction; (2) Hannuksela, as a
whole, is completely silent with respect to “an intra prediction
mode decision of each macro block” as recited in Claim 23;
(3) Hannuksela, as a whole, is completely silent with respect to
“a determination of an intra prediction direction for the
respective macroblock” as recited in Claim 23; and (4)
Hannuksela, as a whole, is completely silent with respect to “an
intra prediction mode decision [which comprises a
determination of an intra prediction direction] of each
macroblock corresponding to the first encoded stream is used
for the second encoded stream when a same intra picture is
shared between the first encoded stream and the second
encoded stream” as recited in Claim 23.
Appeal Br. 13–14; see also Reply Br. 5–7. With respect to the disclosure in
paragraph 82 of Hannuksela, Appellant argues:
The cited lines 15-18 of paragraph [0082] of Hannuksela
merely disclose that “[w]ith such a hierarchical coding structure
[i.e., TL 0–3], different temporal scalability corresponding to
different frame rates can be achieved by discarding pictures
of a certain temporal level value and beyond.” This passage
at best discloses that a same key picture (i.e., the I/P picture) is
shared between pictures of different temporal levels for inter-
picture prediction.
Appeal Br. 15.
Appeal 2020-002095
Application 13/545,261

10
We agree with Appellant that Hannuksela’s disclosure of prediction
methods using a reference picture or frame relates to inter prediction and
does not teach or suggest the claimed intra prediction mode decision. See
Appeal Br. 13–14. The Examiner’s assertion that “[t]he I in ‘I/ P’ means it’s
an I-frame which is literally defined as intra-coded picture” and “[i]ntra-
prediction, as per the standards which Hannuksela builds upon, is performed
according to modes (i.e., DC mode, vertical mode, horizontal mode, etc.)
and performed at the macroblock level” (see Ans. 34) are not supported by
evidence of record.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner does not
provide prima facie support for the rejection. “[T]he examiner bears the
initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of
presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Therefore, on the record before us, we are
constrained to find that the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claim 23,
as well as claims 27–37 dependent therefrom, as obvious.
Claim 16
As reproduced supra, claim 16 requires (emphasis added):
generating, by the single encoding engine, in parallel, a
plurality of streams comprising a first encoded stream
according to a first version of profile and level and a second
encoded stream according to a second version of the profile
and level, the second encoded stream being generated using
video coding information used to generate the first encoded
stream, and the first version of the profile and level and the
second version of the profile and level differing in either the
profile, the level, or a combination of both the profile and
the level,
Appeal 2020-002095
Application 13/545,261

11
wherein the generating of the second encoded stream
comprises performing motion search on the second encoded,
stream using a luma bi-prediction size that is limited to a
minimum luma bi-prediction size specified for the first
encoded stream when the level of the profile and level
associated with the second encoded stream is lower than a
threshold level and the level of the profile and level
associated with the first encoded stream is equal to or above
the threshold level.
See Appeal Br. 22–23.
In rejecting claim 16, the Examiner finds that the features of the
above-quoted limitations are taught or suggested by the combination of
Sarna and H.264. Final Act. 9–12 (citing Sarna 1:27–28, 3:63–5:4, Figs. 3–
6; H.264 pp. 283, 289, 297, Fig. 7, Tables A-1, A-4); Ans. 5–7. Appellant
contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 because:
The H.264 standard merely discloses that the value of the
MimLumaBiPredSize is 8X8 for levels 3.1 and above, and is
undefined for levels 3 and below. See Table A-4 of the H.264
Standard. However, knowing that the value of the
MimLumaBiPredSize is 8X8 for levels 3.1 and above and is
undefined for levels 3 and below does not disclose or suggest
that the motion search on the second encoded stream is limited
to the minimum luma bi-prediction size that is only required for
the first encoded stream when the level of the second encoded
stream is lower than a threshold level and the level of the first
encoded stream is equal to or above the threshold level.
Appeal Br. 23; see also Reply Br. 8–9.
We agree with Appellant that
[O]ne of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it
obvious to combine the Sarna (which is silent with respect to
even the profile and level) with the H.264 standard (which
merely discloses that the value of the MimLumaBiPredSize is
Appeal 2020-002095
Application 13/545,261

12
8X8 for levels 3.1 and above, and is undefined for levels 3 and
below) to arrive at Claim 16.
Appeal Br. 23. The Examiner’s assertion that “Sarna is clear that the H.26#
(e.g., H.262, H.263, H.264, etc.) formats are supported as H.264’s
predecessor, H.263, is expressly disclosed as a supported format (col. 5, l.
66)” (see Ans. 48) is not supported by evidence of record.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner does not
provide prima facie support for the rejection. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d at
1445. Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner errs in rejecting
independent claim 16, as well as claims 17 and 19 dependent therefrom, as
obvious.
Claim 21
Seregin
In rejecting claim 21, the Examiner finds that Sarna discloses the
recited encoding engine that receives a video input and generates the first
and second encoded streams. Final Act. 13–14 (citing Sarna 1:27, 6:1–2,
15–16, 29–33, Figs. 3–6). The Examiner further finds Sun discloses the
steps of “identifying a first Group of Pictures (GOP)” and “determining that
the corresponding first picture in the first GOP uses a first reference picture
that is available in the first GOP and absent from the second GOP” included
in generating the second encoded stream. Final Act. 15–16 (citing Sun ¶ 21,
Fig. 1) (emphasis omitted). For the remaining limitations of claim 21, the
Examiner relies on the disclosure of the motion vector (MV) scaling in
Seregin and finds that “it would have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to have scaled a motion vector utilizing the temporal
Appeal 2020-002095
Application 13/545,261

13
distance, as taught by Seregin ([0039]), in Sarna and Sun’s joint invention.”
Final Act. 17–18 (citing Seregin ¶¶ 5, 39).
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because Seregin fails to teach or suggest the
following limitations:
identifying a first temporal distance between the
corresponding first picture in the first GOP and a second
reference picture which is preceding to the first reference
picture that is available in the first GOP and absent from
the second GOP, the second reference picture available in both
the first GOP and the second GOP,
identifying a second temporal distance between the
corresponding first picture in the first GOP and the first
reference picture that is available in the first GOP and absent
from the second GOP,
determining a factor corresponding to a ratio between
the first temporal distance and the second temporal distance,
and
scaling the motion vectors associated with the
corresponding first picture in the first GOP to derive the
motion vectors for the selected second picture in the second
GOP using the determined factor.
See Appeal Br. 24. According to Appellant,
Seregin describes that “additional MV scaling according to
the temporal distance can be applied when converting the
reference index to one of the valid EL reference indices.”
However, “MV scaling according to the temporal distance” of
Seregin only discloses that the MV scaling is according to a
single temporal distance, not a ratio between two different
temporal distances. Seregin is completely silent with respect to
scaling motion vectors “using the determined factor” that is
“corresponding to a ratio between the first temporal distance
and the second temporal distance.” Indeed, Seregin does not
at all disclose or suggest a ratio between two different temporal
Appeal 2020-002095
Application 13/545,261

14
distances, much less the specific features of each temporal
distance as recited in Claim 21.
Id. at 25. Similarly, Appellant argues that this portion of Seregin “does not
at all disclose or suggest ‘the second temporal distance’ as recited in claim
21, which is ‘between the corresponding first picture in the first GOP and
the first reference picture that is available in the first GOP and absent from
the second GOP.’” Id. at 26.
In response, the Examiner asserts:
In Seregin the motion vector (MV) is originally pointing from
the current frame to the missing dropped frame, which
corresponds to a first temporal position with a corresponding
temporal distance, then it is determined where the next
available frame is in accordance with the reference index,
which is at a second temporal position with a corresponding
temporal distance. The factor by which the MV is scaled by
corresponds to the temporal distance difference (i.e., ratio). It is
unclear to the Examiner how a MV is scaled, if not by a factor
corresponding to a ratio, to achieve a MV pointing to the
correct position in an available frame. For instance, if an
immediately preceding frame is missing and the subsequent
frame is available, then the scaling would be a factor of 2 based
on the current position of the MV and the [sic] to be scaled
position of the MV. For these reasons, the rejection is
maintained.
Ans. 49–50.
We agree with Appellant that Seregin’s disclosure of motion vector
scaling involves a single temporal distance does not teach or suggest the
claimed “determining a factor corresponding to a ratio between the first
temporal distance and the second temporal distance” as well as the specific
requirement that the first picture is in the first GOP and the second reference
picture “is preceding to the first reference picture that is available in the first
Appeal 2020-002095
Application 13/545,261

15
GOP and absent from the second GOP, the second reference picture
available in both the first GOP and the second GOP.” See Appeal Br. 26–27;
see also Reply Br. 10. The Examiner has not provided supporting evidence
for finding that Seregin teaches or suggests the disputed limitation, and
instead has relied on speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claim
terms and the reference teachings in basing the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
103. See Ans. 49–50. “A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on
a factual basis[.]” 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 . . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or
hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” Id.
Cha
In an alternate rejection of claim 21, the Examiner finds Cha discloses
the limitations that were found previously in Seregin. Final Act. 27–32
(citing Cha ¶¶ 14, 54). Appellant presents similar arguments that were
raised regarding Seregin and asserts that in Cha “neither . . . ‘the distance
between the reference frame 60 and the location at which the temporary
frame 80 is to be generated’ nor ‘the distance between the reference frame
60 and the inter frame 50’ disclose or suggest ‘the first temporal distance’ as
recited in Claim 21.” Appeal Br. 28. Appellant specifically argues that the
reference frame disclosed in Cha is different from the recited “second
reference picture” which “is available in the first GOP and absent from the
second GOP, the second reference picture available in both the first GOP and
the second GOP,” as recited in claim 21. Id. (citing Cha ¶¶ 49, 54).
Appellant also argues that the reference frame in Cha does not have the
Appeal 2020-002095
Application 13/545,261

16
recited “first temporal distance” and “second temporal distance” with the
disclosed “inter frame 50” or any frame. Appeal Br. 29.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments of Examiner error. We
specifically disagree with the Examiner asserting “Appellant has provided
no argument directed towards Cha’s teachings of temporally scaling based
on a ratio of temporal distances and has provided no supporting evidence
that Cha’s temporal scaling cannot be combined with Sarna and Sun’s
disclosure of a GOP that is temporally scaled.” See Ans. 54–55. At best, the
Examiner’s response improperly shifts the burden of showing the reference
teachings to Appellant instead of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner does not
provide prima facie support for the rejection. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d at
1445. Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner errs in rejecting
independent claim 21, as well as claim 22 dependent therefrom, as obvious.

CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s
proposed combination does not teach or suggest the recited features of
claims 16, 21, and 23. Therefore, Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us
of error in claims 16, 21, and 23, as well as the remaining claims dependent
therefrom. See Appeal Br. 31–35 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-002095
Application 13/545,261

17
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21, 22 112(a) Written
Description
21, 22
16, 17, 19 103 Sarna, H.264

16, 17, 19
21, 22 103 Sarna, Sun,
Seregin
21, 22
23, 27–32,
34–37
103 Sarna, Hannuksela

23, 27–32,
34–37
33 103 Sarna, Hannuksela,
Sun, Seregin
33
21, 22 103 Sarna, Sun, Cha 21, 22
Overall
Outcome
16, 17, 19,
21–23, 27–
37

REVERSED