Ling Feng. Huang et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 16, 2019

13801622 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2019)

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.
13/801,622 03/13/2013 Ling Feng Huang QVID.040A / 122667 2782
14870 7590 10/16/2019
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
Formerly KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
5775 Morehouse Dr.
San Diego, CA 92121
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, KATHLEEN V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/16/2019 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte LING FENG HUANG,
HARI GANESH THIRUNAGESWARAM,
HARIHARAN G. LALGUDI,
SUMIT MOHAN, and KAI WANG
________________

Appeal 2018-009008
Application 13/801,622
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2018-009008
Application 13/801,622

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6–12, 15, 17–21, 23–29, 32, 34–
36, and 38. Claims 5, 13, 14, 16, 22, 30, 31, 33, and 37 are canceled. Appeal
Br. 16, 18, 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Summary of the disclosure
Appellant discloses a method of efficiently searching for candidate
blocks for inter- or intra-coding that searching selected “candidate blocks
based on a format of the video data.” Abstract.
Representative claim (key limitations emphasized)
1. An apparatus for performing motion estimation, the
apparatus comprising:
a processor configured to:
identify a size of an initial set of candidate blocks
of video data to be searched for estimating motion for a
current block;
select an initial set of candidate blocks for
estimating motion for the current block, the initial set
including an initial number of candidate blocks equal to
the size, the set including at least one candidate block
corresponding to a first block included in a first frame of
the video data and at least one candidate block
corresponding to a second block included in a second
frame of the video data;

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Qualcomm
Incorporated. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-009008
Application 13/801,622

3

generate a set of candidate blocks to search by
removing a candidate block from the initial set based on
a distance between the candidate block and a previously
searched block;
select a search complexity level for searching the
selected candidate blocks based on a format of the video
data, wherein the format of the video data comprises a
size of the frame and a frame rate of the video data;
identify an estimation block from the selected
candidate blocks, the identification performed according
to a search method of the selected complexity level;
estimate the motion for the current block based on
the estimation block;
in response to detecting a first format for the video
data, search the first block in the set of candidate blocks
before searching any other blocks in the set of candidate
blocks; and
in response to detecting a second format for the
video data, search the second block in the set of
candidate blocks before searching any other blocks in the
set of candidate blocks.
The Examiner’s rejections and cited references
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 18,2 19, 21, 35, and 36 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over He et al. (US 2008/0084491

2 Claim 18 is a method claim that recites both: (1) in response to detecting a
first format for the video data, searching the first block in the set of
candidate blocks before searching any other blocks in the set of candidate
blocks and (2) in response to detecting a second format for the video data,
searching the second block in the set of candidate blocks before searching
any other blocks in the set of candidate blocks. These are not conditional
recitations, and thus it appears that both the first block and the second block
are to be searched before any other blocks, which is not possible if the first
Appeal 2018-009008
Application 13/801,622

4

A1; published Apr. 10, 2008) (“He”), Fandrianto et al. (US 2001/0046264
A1; published Nov. 9, 2001) (“Fandrianto”), Yu et al. (US 2008/0123733
A1; published May 29, 2008) (“Yu”), and Kim et al. (US 2007/0104274 A1;
published May 10, 2007) (“Kim”). Final Act. 6–13.
The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over He, Fandrianto, Yu, Kim, and Lund et al. (US
2010/0169410 A1; published July 1, 2010) (“Lund”). Final Act. 16–17.
The Examiner rejects claims 6, 8, 12, 15, 23, 25, 29, and 32 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over He, Fandrianto, Yu, Kim, and
Yi et al. (US 2012/0195356 A1; published Aug. 2, 2012) (“Yi”). Final Act.
17–21.
The Examiner rejects claims 7, 9, 24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over He, Fandrianto, Yu, Kim, Yi, and Sasaki (US
5,959,672; issued Sept. 28, 1999). Final Act. 21–23.
The Examiner rejects claims 10, 11, 17, 27, 28, and 34 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over He, Fandrianto, Yu, Kim, and
Tsai et al. (US 2006/0203914 A1; published Sept. 14, 2006) (“Tsai”). Final
Act. 14–16.
The Examiner rejects claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over He, Fandrianto, Yu, Kim, and Cote et al. (US
2011/0032992 A1; published Feb. 10, 2011) (“Cote”). Final Act. 23–24.

and second block differ. In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner
should ascertain whether claim 18 and the claims that depend therefrom are
indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Appeal 2018-009008
Application 13/801,622

5

ADOPTION OF EXAMINER’S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings as set
forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken, and
we concur with the Examiner’s conclusions. We have considered
Appellant’s arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We provide
the following explanation for emphasis.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner finds that He’s teaching
that the complexity of a video stream can be adjusted by modifying its size
or frame rate teaches or suggests wherein the format of the video data
comprises a size of the frame and a frame rate of the video data. Final Act. 8
(citing, e.g., He ¶ 6). Appellant contends the Examiner erred because
“[n]owhere does He specify that the format of a video data comprises ‘a size
of the frame and a frame rate of the video data.’” Appeal Br. 10. That is,
Appellant argues “a discussion of ‘reducing picture size’ or ‘reducing frame
rate’ does not teach that a video format comprises ‘a size of the frame and a
frame rate of the video data.’” Id.; see also Reply Br. 2.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because He’s picture size and
frame rate teachings show that that the format of video data in He includes
both a frame size and a frame rate.
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner relies on He’s teaching
regarding the effect on motion estimation of evaluating the complexity of a
set of video image information to teach or suggest selecting a search
complexity level for searching the selected candidate blocks based on a
format of the video data. Final Act. 8 (citing He ¶¶ 6, 25, 33); see also Ans.
5. Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “the motion search
Appeal 2018-009008
Application 13/801,622

6

methods of He are selected based on the power savings factor (PSF) and not
‘based on a format of the video data.’” Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 2–
3.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because He teaches “[t]he
workload of the codec is varied based on the complexity of the information
being processed,” where complexity can be reduced “by reducing picture
size (spatial resolution) or reducing frame rate (temporal resolution).” He
¶ 6. The search method can be further modified based on a power savings
factor, as Appellant contends. Appeal Br. 11; see also He ¶ 25. This does not
obviate, however, He’s teaching or suggestion that search complexity is also
determined by picture size and video frame rate (i.e., based on the format of
the video data).
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner relies on Kim’s
distinction between inter- and intra-frames in searching video data to teach
or suggest: (1) in response to detecting a first format for the video data,
search the first block in the set of candidate blocks before searching any
other blocks in the set of candidate blocks and (2) in response to detecting a
second format for the video data, search the second block in the set of
candidate blocks before searching any other blocks in the set of candidate
blocks. Final Act. 11–12 (citing Kim ¶¶ 3, 7, 60–62, Fig. 8, 9); Ans. 7–8. In
particular, the “Examiner interprets the intra and inter frame types of a frame
to be a first format and second format of the video data, since video data
includes frames because video comprises [a] plurality of frames.” Final Act.
3. Appellant contends the Examiner erred because, although Appellant
acknowledges “Kim describes consideration of the frame type of a frame,”
Appeal 2018-009008
Application 13/801,622

7

“Claim 1 recites ‘in response to detecting a first format for the video data.’”
Appeal Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 4–5.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because Appellant fails to
distinguish the claimed first format for the video data and second format for
the video data from Kim’s inter- and intra-frames. Appellant argues that
“consideration of ‘a size of the frame and a frame rate of the video data’ . . .
would frustrate the purpose of Kim.” Reply Br. 4. The Examiner correctly
notes, however, that “[t]he term ‘a first format’ and ‘a second format’ for the
video data is broad and can be interpreted to be anything that relate[s] to
[the] format of [the] video data because the claim does not cite a first [or
second] format to be a frame size or frame rate.” Ans. 7. That is,
[t]he limitation of “the format of the video data
comprises a size of the frame and a frame rate” . . . does
not cite that the format of the video data only include[s] a
size of the frame and a frame rate. Therefore, [the]
format of the video data can include other things that
related to video data.
Id. (italicized emphasis added).
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
He and Kim teaches or suggests the disputed recitations. Final Act. 8, 11–12.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of
claim 1, and claims 2–4, 6–12, 15, 17–21, 23–29, 32, 34–36, and 38, which
Appellant does not argue separately with persuasive specificity. Appeal Br.
14; Reply Br. 6.
Appeal 2018-009008
Application 13/801,622

8

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 18,
19, 21, 35, 36
103(a) He, Fandrianto,
Yu, Kim
1, 2, 4, 18, 19,
21, 35, 36

3, 20 103(a) He, Fandrianto,
Yu, Kim, Lund
3, 20
6, 8, 12, 15,
23, 25, 29, 32
103(a) He, Fandrianto,
Yu, Kim, Yi
6, 8, 12, 15,
23, 25, 29, 32

7, 9, 24, 26 103(a) He, Fandrianto,
Yu, Kim, Yi,
Sasaki
7, 9, 24, 26
10, 11, 17,
27, 28, 34
103(a) He, Fandrianto,
Yu, Kim, Tsai
10, 11, 17, 27,
28, 34

38 103(a) He, Fandrianto,
Yu, Kim, Cote
38
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–12, 15,
17–21, 23–29,
32, 34–36, 38

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED