QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 27, 2020

14024058 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 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.
14/024,058 09/11/2013 Li Zhang 1212-372US01/124388 5294
15150 7590 05/27/2020
Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A.
1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
EXAMINER
CHANG, DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2020 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LI ZHANG, YING CHEN, and
MARTA KARCZEWICZ

Appeal 2019-000823
Application 14/024,058
Technology Center 2400

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DAVID M. KOHUT, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–48. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use “Appellant” to reference the applicant as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
“QUALCOMM Incorporated.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-000823
Application 14/024,058

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to video coding. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of argued subject matter.
1. A method of decoding multi-view video data, the method
comprising:
deriving, with a video decoder, one or more disparity vectors
[(DVs)] for a current block of video data, the DVs being
derived from neighboring blocks of video data relative to the
current block of video data;
adding, with the video decoder, one or more inter-view
predicted motion vector candidates ([IV-Prediction-MVCs]) to
a candidate list for a motion vector prediction mode, wherein
the one or more interview predicted motion vector candidates
are based on the one or more derived DVs;
converting, with the video decoder, the one or more derived
DVs to one or more inter-view disparity motion vector
candidates [(IV-Disparity-MVCs)], including setting respective
vertical components of the one or more derived DVs to zero;
adding, with the video decoder, in addition to the one or more
IV-Prediction-MVCs, the one or more IV-Disparity-MVCs to
the candidate list for the motion vector prediction mode; and
decoding, with the video decoder, the current block of video
data using the candidate list.2
Appeal Br. 36 (Claims Appendix).
References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
1. Schwarz et al., “Test Model under Consideration for HEVC based 3D
video coding v3.0” 100. MPEG MEETING; April 2012, Geneva;

2 We have, throughout this opinion, replaced disparity vector with “DV,”
inter-view predicted motion vector candidate with “IV-Prediction-MVC,”
and inter-view disparity motion vector candidate with “IV-Disparity-MVC.”
Appeal 2019-000823
Application 14/024,058

3
(Motion Picture Expert Group OR ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG 11),
no. N12744, June 1, 2012 (“Schwarz”).
2. Zhang et al., “3D-CE5.h related: DV Derivation for Multiview Video
and 3DV,” MPEG MEETING; April–May 2012, Geneva; (Motion
Picture Expert Group OR ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG 11), no. m24937
(“Zhang1”).
3. Sugio et al. (“Sugio”) U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0004093 A1 Jan. 3, 2013
4. Chen et al. (“Chen”) U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0201215 A1 July 16, 2015
5. Cai et al. (“Cai”) U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0285654 A1 Nov. 20, 2008
6. Zhang et al., “3D-CE5.h related: Improved merge mode for inter-view
predicted motion,” MPEG MEETING; 16-20 July 2012, Stockholm;
(JCT3V OR ITU-T SG 16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC l/SC 29/WG 11),
no. JCT3V-A0096, July 10, 2012 (“Zhang2”).
7. Guionnet et al., “CE5.h related: Merge candidate list extension for
disparity compensated prediction,” MPEG MEETING; 16-20 July
2012, Stockholm; (JCT3V OR ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC
l/SC 29/WG 11), no. JCT3V-A0134, July 13, 2012 (“Guionnet”).
8. Kim et al., NPL (“High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) Test Model
7 (HM 7) Encoder Description,” April 27–May 7, 2012, Geneva, Joint
Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG16 WP3
and ISO/IEC JTCI /SC29/WG11, JCTVC-11 002, July 9, 2012
(“Kim”).
Rejections
Claims 1–4, 12–15, 23, 25, 27–30, and 38–41 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as lacking a written description.
Final Act. 14–15.
Claims 1–3, 23, and 27–29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Schwarz, Zhang1, Sugio, and Chen. Id. at 16–20.
Claims 4 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Schwarz, Zhang1, Sugio, Chen, and Zhang2. Id. at 21–23.
Appeal 2019-000823
Application 14/024,058

4
Claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 24, 31, 32, 34, and 35 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Schwarz, Zhang1, Sugio, and Guionnet.
Id. at 23–29.
Claims 7 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Schwarz, Zhang1, Sugio, Guionnet, and Kim. Id. at 29–31.
Claims 10, 11, 36, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Schwarz, Zhang1, Sugio, Guionnet, and Zhang2. Id. at 31–34.
Claims 12–14, 25, and 38–40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Schwarz, Zhang1, Sugio, Chen, and Cai. Id. at 34–37.
Claims 15 and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Schwarz, Zhang1, Sugio, Chen, Zhang2, and Cai. Id. at 37–40.
Claims 16, 17, 19, 20, 26, 42, 43, 45, and 46 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Schwarz, Zhang1, Sugio, Guionnet, and
Cai. Id. at 40–43.
Claims 18 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Schwarz, Zhang1, Sugio, Guionnet, Kim, and Cai. Id. at 43–46.
Claims 21, 22, 47, and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Schwarz, Zhang1, Sugio, Guionnet, Zhang2, and Cai. Id. at
46–47.
35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 (WRITTEN DESCRIPTION)
For the following reasons, we are persuaded of error in the § 112
rejection of claims 1–4, 12–15, 23, 25, 27–30, and 38–41 and accordingly do
not sustain this rejection. All claims recite or incorporate the limitation at
issue (below). Ans. 4; Final Act. 14. We address the rejection with
reference to claim 1.
Appeal 2019-000823
Application 14/024,058

5
The at-issue claim limitation is: “converting . . . the . . . derived DV[]
to [an] IV-Disparity-MVC[], including setting respective vertical
components of the . . . derived DV[] to zero.” Appeal Br. 36
(Claims Appendix); see also Ans. 36 (acknowledging the issue is whether
the Specification describes converting a DV into an IV-Disparity-MVC by
setting a vertical component of the DV to zero).3 Originally-filed claim 1
recited in pertinent part: “converting a DV to [an] . . .
IV-Disparity-MVC[].” Spec. 46. Present claim 1 thus adds, to the original
claims, the conversion (of a DV into an IV-Disparity-MVC) includes setting
a vertical component of the DV to zero. See Amendment, filed May 9,
2017, at 2. The overall issue is consequently whether the originally-filed
Specification conveys, “with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art,”
converting a DV to an IV-Disparity-MVC and doing so by (at least in part)
setting a vertical component of the DV to zero. See, e.g., Vas-Cath,

3 The at-issue limitation is acknowledged by the Examiner’s responses to
Appellant’s arguments. Ans. 36; see also Final Act. 2–3. The at-issue
limitation slightly differs, however, from the limitation contested by the
Examiner’s descriptions of the rejection. Ans. 3–4; see also Final Act. 14–
15. Those descriptions state there is no written description support for the
claimed “converting . . . the . . . derived DV[] to . . . [an]
IV-Disparity-MVC” and state nothing of this conversion “including setting
respective vertical components of the . . . derived DV[] to zero.” Appeal Br.
36. Because rejections concern a claim as a whole, Appellant may (as it has)
frame the issue as whether the Specification conveys a conversion of DV to
an IV-Disparity-MVC that sets a vertical component to zero. See
In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“The claim must be
read as a whole. If the board meant to disregard that basic principle of
claim interpretation, we must reverse the rejection as a matter of law.”).

Appeal 2019-000823
Application 14/024,058

6
Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (A specification
must “convey with reasonable clarity[,] to those skilled in the art . . . [, that
the inventor] was in possession of the [claimed] invention.”) (emphasis
omitted).
Appellant contends written support is provided by the Specification’s
paragraphs 113 and 122 (Appeal Br. 21), which state in toto (emphasis
added):
[0113] Still another drawback results when the spatial/temporal
neighboring blocks are used to derive the merging candidates
and they are inter-view predicted. In this case, the vertical
component of the motion vector may be not equal to 0.
. . . .
[0122] In another example of the disclosure, when the motion
information from spatial/temporal neighboring blocks is used to
derive the motion vector candidates, and the motion vector is a
disparity motion vector, the vertical component of motion
vector may be forced to be set to 0 for merge and/or AMVP
mode.
Appellant also contends that submitted extrinsic evidence shows an artisan
would have understood the above teachings to set a DV’s vertical
component to zero as pertaining to conversion of a DV to an
IV-Disparity-MVC. Appeal Br. 22–23. Specifically, Appellant also
contends4:
Appellant [has] cited extrinsic evidence that shows why a
person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the
claims and Appellant’s specification as providing sufficient
detail for how to perform the claimed conversion. . . . [I]n
TECH et al., “3D-HEVC Test Model 1,” Joint Collaborative

4 Appellant’s block-quoted argument (first indentation) includes Appellant’s
block-quoting of the standard (second and third indentations).
Appeal 2019-000823
Application 14/024,058

7
Team on 3D Video Coding Extension Development of ITU-T
SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC I/SC 29/WG 11, Document:
JCT3VA1005_d0, 1st Meeting: Stockholm, SE, July 16–20
. . . , the conversion of a DV to an inter-view disparity motion
vector is described as follows:
G.8.5.2.1.11 Derivation process for a disparity
inter-view motion vector predictor candidate
. . . .
The derivation process for a DV . . . is invoked[.]
. . . [T]he motion vector candidate mvLXInterView is
derived by
mvLXInterView[0]= mvDisp[0] (G 83)
mvLXInterView[1]= 0 (G 84)
As can be seen in the bold and underlined section above, the
interview-disparity motion vector (mvLXInterview) . . . uses a
vertical component (designated as [1]) of zero.
Id.; see also Amendment, filed Feb. 15, 2018, at 3–4 (prior submission of
the same extrinsic evidence). We are persuaded the above considerations
provide a preponderance of evidence in favor of written description support.
See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“After evidence or
argument is submitted by the applicant in response, patentability is
determined on the totality of the record, by a preponderance of evidence
with due consideration to persuasiveness of argument.”).
First, the Specification states an “upcoming HEVC standard is
described” by the extrinsic evidence and “the techniques of this disclosure
are described primarily with respect to the 3DV extension of HEVC.”
Spec. ¶ 41. We accordingly find the extrinsic evidence shows the ordinary
skill in the invention’s art and, as such, is acceptable evidence of how an
artisan would interpret the Specification’s above paragraphs 113 and 122.
Appeal 2019-000823
Application 14/024,058

8
Second, we also find the extrinsic evidence’s above-emphasized
“[d]erivation process for a disparity inter-view motion vector candidate”
indicates, as argued, an art-recognized practice of deriving an
IV-Disparity-MVC by setting a vertical component of a DV to zero
(assuming a vertical component is designated “mvLXInterView[1],” as is
further argued and not disputed). We accordingly agree with Appellant that
the extrinsic evidence indicates the Specification’s cited paragraphs 113 and
122 would be understood as teaching to set a vertical component of a DV to
zero as part of converting the DV to an IV-Disparity-MVC, i.e., as teaching
the at-issue claim limitation.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claims 1–3, 23, and 27–29
Appellant argues claims 1–3, 23, and 27–29 as a group for this
rejection. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 24 (heading). We select claim 1 as
representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). For the following reasons, we
are unpersuaded of error in this rejection of claim 1 and accordingly sustain
this rejection of claims 1–3, 23, and 27–29.
The arguments principally concern the above-addressed
claim limitation, i.e., the claimed “converting . . . .” Appeal Br. 24–29.
Regarding this limitation, Appellant first contends:
Appellant strongly objects to the final Office Action’s
contention that Schwarz’ description that the “derived DV can
also be directly used as a candidate DV . . .” relates in any way
to Appellant’s feature of “converting . . . the . . . derived DV[]
to [an] IV-Disparity-MVC[],” as is recited in independent
claim 1. The above-quoted description of Schwarz simply
involves no conversion at all, but instead specifically teaches
away from any such conversion, and uses the DV directly.
Appeal 2019-000823
Application 14/024,058

9
The Final Office Action now argues that the direct use of a
derived DV . . . , as described in Schwarz, is a kind of conversion
because the DV is being used for a role other than its original
role. Appellant objects to this interpretation of [the] claims.
[S]uch use in another role is in no way a conversion.
Appeal Br. 26 (footnote omitted).
We are unpersuaded of error because the argument is incommensurate
with the claim scope and, particularly, incommensurate with the meaning of
“convert.” A plain meaning of “convert” (verb) is to repurpose something,
e.g., to use it for another purpose without modification. See, e.g.,
CONVERT(entry 3), Dictionary.com, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/
convert?s=t (“to turn to another or a particular use or purpose; divert from
the original or intended use” (retrieved April 23, 2020)); CONVERT(entry
2b(1)), Merriam Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/
dictionary/convert (“to change from one . . . function to another” (retrieved
April 23, 2020)); see also Ans. 38–38 (addressing “convert”). The
Specification does not use “convert” in a manner that disclaims the above
plain meaning. See Eolas Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 399 F.3d
1325, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[A]bsent a clear disclaimer in the
specification, the embodiments in the specification do not limit broader
claim language.”).
Further, another Qualcomm (Appellant) patent publication of two
present inventors (Ying Chen and Li Zhang) indicates an artisan would have
interpreted the claimed “converting” to encompass re-purposing of a DV as
an IV-Disparity-MVC. See U.S. Patent No. 9,237,345 B2 to Kang et al.
(titled “Neighbor Block-Based DV Derivation in 3D-AVC”), col. 5, l. 63–
col. 6, l. 4. The publication twice uses “convert” to describe re-purposing.
Appeal 2019-000823
Application 14/024,058

10
First, the publication states a “video coder converts such a motion vector
. . . to a DV . . . (i.e., utilizes the motion vector . . . as a DV).” Id. at col. 5,
ll. 34–37. Second, with even greater pertinence, the publication states:
[T]he video coder may convert the DV yielded by the NBDV
derivation process into a disparity motion vector as a disparity
motion vector predictor. The converted disparity motion vector
may have a zero vertical component due to the “inter-view
motion prediction mode” no matter what the vertical
component of the disparity motion vector was. However, it
may be possible that the disparity motion vector is unchanged.
Id. at col. 28, ll. 18–25 (emphasis added). “Converting” is used to describe
mere designating of a DV as a disparity motion vector—regardless of
whether the designation changes the DV.
Appellant also contends:
In its full context, Appellant’s claim 1 recites “converting, with
the video decoder, the one or more derived DVs to one or more
IV-Disparity-MVCs, including setting respective vertical
components of the one or more derived DVs to zero.” . . .
Schwarz does not teach any conversion of a derived DV to an
IV-Disparity-MVC, much less the specific conversion recited.
To the extent Chen discusses setting a vertical component of a
DV to zero, Chen does not do so in the context of converting a
DV to an IV-Disparity-MVC. Rather, Chen teaches forcing a
particular component to zero to avoid signaling the component.
Appeal Br. 27.
We are unpersuaded of error because the claimed “converting
. . . including setting respective vertical components . . . to zero” is broad
enough to encompass a process that re-purposes a DV as a
IV-Disparity-MVC and improves the element (i.e., improves the
re-purposing) by setting the vertical component to zero. This process is the
Appeal 2019-000823
Application 14/024,058

11
proposed combination of Schwarz and Chen. See Final Act. 5–6, 8, 19–20;
Ans. 9, 39–40. Further, the Examiner supports the proposed combination by
showing Chen teaches that setting the vertical component of a DV to zero
(e.g., if the views of 3D imager are horizontally aligned) advantageously
reduces the complexity of the DV. Id. (citing Chen ¶¶ 21, 41–43).
Chen need not alone, as is argued, teach setting of the vertical
component to zero in the context of designating a DV as a disparity motion
vector (i.e., in Schwarz’s context). And even if that were so, the Examiner
shows Chen relates its cited teaching to this context inasmuch that:
Chen states in Paragraph [0040] that the vertical component of
DV and motion vector difference is forced to zero when a DV is
used to predict a DCP block, and when a selected candidate is a
DV as mentioned in Paragraph [0042]. These recitations
describe when a derived DV is converted for use as a candidate
DV for DCP, and thus are within the context of converting a
DV to an IV-Disparity-MVC.
Ans. 40. The Reply Brief ignores the Examiner’s reliance on Chen—merely
repeating the Appeal Brief arguments directed to Schwarz. Reply Br. 9–11.
A second at-issue claim limitation is: “adding, . . . in addition to the
. . . IV-Prediction-MVC[], the . . . IV-Disparity-MVC[] to the candidate list
for the motion vector prediction mode.” Appeal Br. 36 (Claims Appendix);
id. at 28–29 (identifying the limitation). Appellant contends:
The final Office Action concedes that Schwarz and Zhang1
does not teach or suggest . . . [the limitation and] contends that
Sugio teaches such a feature. Appellant respectfully
disagrees. To the extent that Sugio describes different types of
motion vectors related to multi-view video data, Sugio fails to
describe or suggest adding the specific types of motion vectors
(e.g., IV-Prediction-MVC[] and IV-Disparity-MVC[]) to the
same candidate list for a motion vector prediction mode.
Appeal 2019-000823
Application 14/024,058

12
Id.
We are unpersuaded of error because the Examiner relies on Schwarz
and Sugio in combination—not solely Sugio—to reach the claimed addition
of both an IV-Prediction-MVC and IV-Disparity-MVC to a candidate list for
a motion vector prediction mode. See, e.g., Ans. 42. Specifically, the
Examiner finds Schwarz and Sugio respectively teach adding of an
IV-Prediction-MVC (Schwarz) and IV-Disparity-MVC (Sugio) to a
candidate list for a motion vector prediction mode. Ans. 41–42. Appellant
does not provide sufficient evidence to show either finding is incorrect. Nor
does Appellant provide sufficient evidence to show that adding both an
IV-Prediction-MVC and IV-Disparity-MVC to a same candidate list for a
motion vector prediction mode would not have been obvious, e.g., would
have yielded an unexpected advantage. See, e.g., KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[W]hen a patent simply arranges old
elements with each performing the same function it had been known to
perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an
arrangement, the combination is obvious.” (internal quotation marks and
respective citation omitted)).
Claims 4–22, 24–26, and 30–44
Appellant’s arguments against the § 103(a) rejection of claims 4–22,
24–26, and 30–44 are merely repetitive of the above arguments against the
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1–3, 23, and 27–29. Appeal Br. 29 et seq.
Because the above arguments are unpersuasive, we sustain this rejection of
claims 4–22, 24–26, and 30–44.
Appeal 2019-000823
Application 14/024,058

13
OVERALL CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–48.5
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 12–15,
23, 25,
27–30, 38–41
112, ¶ 1 Written Description
1–4, 12–15,
23, 25, 27–30,
38–41
1–3, 23,
27–29 103
Schwarz, Zhang1,
Sugio, Chen
1–3, 23,
27–29
4, 30 103 Schwarz, Zhang1, Sugio, Chen, Zhang2 4, 30
5, 6, 8, 9, 24,
31, 32, 34, 35 103
Schwarz, Zhang1,
Sugio, Guionnet
5, 6, 8, 9,
24, 31,
32, 34, 35

7, 33 103 Schwarz, Zhang1, Sugio, Guionnet, Kim 7, 33
10, 11, 36, 37 103
Schwarz, Zhang1,
Sugio, Guionnet,
Zhang2
10, 11,
36, 37
12–14, 25,
38–40 103
Schwarz, Zhang1,
Sugio, Chen, Cai
12–14,
25, 38 40
15, 41 103
Schwarz, Zhang1,
Sugio, Chen, Zhang2,
Cai
15, 41
16, 17, 19,
20, 26, 42,
43, 45, 46
103 Schwarz, Zhang1, Sugio, Guionnet, Cai
16, 17,
19, 20,
26, 42,
43, 45, 46

18, 44 103
Schwarz, Zhang1,
Sugio, Guionnet,
Kim, Cai
18, 44

5 “The affirmance of the rejection of a claim on any of the grounds specified
constitutes a general affirmance of the decision of the examiner on that
claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50.
Appeal 2019-000823
Application 14/024,058

14
21, 22, 47, 48 103
Schwarz, Zhang1,
Sugio, Guionnet,
Zhang2, Cai
21, 22,
47, 48
Overall
Outcome 1–48

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