QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 6, 2021

2020003305 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 6, 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.
14/295,540 06/04/2014 Rajan Laxman Joshi 1212-606US01/133452 1037
15150 7590 10/06/2021
Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A.
1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
EXAMINER
JEBARI, MOHAMMED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/06/2021 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):
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 RAJAN LAXMAN JOSHI, JOEL SOLE ROJALS,
and MARTA KARCZEWICZ1
________________

Appeal 2020-003305
Application 14/295,540
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–3, 9–23, and 26–33, which constitute all claims
pending in this application. Appeal Br. 8–26. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Board conducts a limited de novo review of the appealed
rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in
light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye,
94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We REVERSE.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Qualcomm as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 3, filed
October 8, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”).
Appeal 2020-003305
Application 14/295,540

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant describes the present invention as follows:
Techniques are described for harmonizing coding
techniques when residual differential pulse code modulation
(RDPCM) is applied to a residual block. In some examples, a
scan order used for such a residual block may be required to be
the same as when the residual block is generated from intra-
predicting the current block and when the residual block is
generated from inter-predicting or intra block copy predicting the
current block.
Spec., Abstr.
Independent claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter on appeal:
1. A method of decoding video data, the method comprising:
decoding information indicating a direction in which
residual differential pulse code modulation (DPCM) is applied to
a first residual block that includes residual data generated from a
difference between a predictive block, referred to by a vector of
a current block, and the current block, wherein the information
indicating the direction comprises information indicating one of
a vertical residual DPCM or a horizontal residual DPCM;
determining a scan order for the first residual block based
on the information indicating the direction, wherein determining
the scan order for the first residual block comprises determining
only one of:
a vertical scan based on the horizontal residual
DPCM being applied to the first residual block and the size
of the first residual block being less than or equal to 8x8,
or
a horizontal scan based on the vertical residual
DPCM being applied to the first residual block and the size
of the first residual block being less than or equal to 8x8;
entropy decoding the residual data of the first residual
block based on the determined scan order; and
Appeal 2020-003305
Application 14/295,540

3
reconstructing the current block based on the decoded
residual data.

STATEMENT OF THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 9–23, and 26–33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Naccari et al., “InterPrediction Residual DPCM,”
Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JVT-VC) of ITU-T SG 16 WP
3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, Incheon, Korea, Apr. 18–26, 2013
(“Naccari”) and Shen (US 6,055,017; issued Apr. 25, 2000). Final Act. 6–
13.

DETERMINATIONS AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Naccari discloses a DPCM scheme that
includes most of the limitations of independent claim 1, but does not teach
(1) determining the scan order for the first residual block, as claimed; or
(2) entropy decoding the residual data of the first residual block based on the
determined scan order. Final Act. 6–7. The Examiner initially finds that
Shen teaches determining a scan order for a first residual block based on
information indicating DCPM direction,
wherein determining the scan order for the first residual block
comprises: determining only one of: a vertical scan based on the
horizontal residual DPCM being applied to the first residual
block and the size of the first residual block being less than or
equal to 8x8, or a horizontal scan based on the vertical residual
DPCM being applied to the first residual block . . . and the size
of the first residual block being less than or equal to 8x8 (block
size is less than or equal to 8x8 . . .); [and] entropy decoding . . .
based on the determined scan order.
Id. at 7–8 (emphasis modified).
Appeal 2020-003305
Application 14/295,540

4
But then the Examiner corrects that statement, finding that in
contrast to the language of claim 1, “Shen discloses vertical scan
based on vertical DPCM being applied and horizontal scan based on
horizontal DPCM being applied.” Final Act. 8 (emphasis added).
The Examiner reasons, though,
it would be obvious to try having vertical scan based on
horizontal DPCM being applied and horizontal scan based on
vertical DPCM being applied since Shen discloses the vertical
scan, the horizontal scan and the vertical and the horizontal
DPCM can be applied, and the present application does not
disclose solving a problem by having only the vertical scan based
on horizontal DPCM being applied and horizontal scan based on
vertical DPCM being applied rather than the vertical scan based
on the vertical DPCM being applied and the horizontal scan
based on the horizontal DPCM being applied.
Id.
The Examiner further reasons that it would have been obvious “to
modify the teachings of Naccari in view of Shen by using an adaptive
scanning based on differential pulse code modulation direction in order to
save bits and improve coding efficiency.” Final Act. 8.
Appellant argues that Shen pertains to wavelet decomposition,
“wavelet decomposition bears absolutely no relationship to a residual block,
[as claimed], and the Examiner erred in asserting that techniques related to
wavelet decomposition would somehow be applicable to determining a scan
order for a residual block.” Appeal Br. 15. According to Appellant, “Shen
[describes] that wavelet decomposition occurs on a block of an original input
frame and a prediction block. Notably, the block of the original input frame
and a prediction block are not anything like a residual block.” Id. at 16.
Appeal 2020-003305
Application 14/295,540

5
Appellant expands upon the argument,
One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
neither the original image nor the motion compensated image are
equivalent to a residual block. As claimed, the first residual
block includes residual data generated from a difference between
a predictive block, referred to by a vector of a current block, and
the current block. The original image, in Shen, is clearly not a
difference between a predictive block and a current block, as
claimed. The motion compensated image, in Shen, appears to be
the image that most closely resembles the original image, and is
clearly not a difference between a predictive block and a current
block, as claimed. Recognizing that the techniques of Shen
provide no additional disclosure relevant to residual DPCM for
inter-predicted blocks, as disclosed by Naccari[], one of ordinary
skill in the art would not have considered the techniques of Shen
to be relevant and, hence, would not have found an apparent
reason to modify the techniques of Naccari and Shen to arrive at
the claimed features.
Appeal Br. 16.

ANALYSIS
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive. The Examiner does not
reasonably explain why one of ordinary skill would have relied on Shen’s
teachings regarding a wavelet video coding method to modify Naccari’s
DPCM scheme for inter-prediction of residuals so as to modify residual
blocks in the manner claimed. The insufficiency of the reasoning for this
modification is further illustrated by the fact that, even after modifying
Naccari according to the teachings of Shen, the combination still does not
teach determining the scan order of the first residual block in the particular
manner claimed—by determining only one of (1) a vertical scan based on
the applied horizontal residual DPCM or (2) a horizontal scan based on the
Appeal 2020-003305
Application 14/295,540

6
applied vertical residual DPCM, as recited in independent claims 1, 21,
and 33.
The Examiner’s primary basis for further modifying the cited
combination so as to satisfy this additional claim limitation is that “[n]one of
the references states that both vertical and horizontal DPCM or scanning
operations have to be done together.” Examiner’s Answer 16, mailed
Feb. 6, 2020. Even assuming, solely for the sake of argument, that this were
true, that fact still would not be a sufficient basis to determine that one of
ordinary skill would have had a reason or motivation to scan the residual
block in a different manner, as claimed.
The obviousness rejection appears to be the result of the Examiner
engaging in hindsight reasoning by using the claims as a roadmap and
impermissibly relying on information gleaned only from Appellant’s
disclosure. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).
Accordingly, we reverse the obviousness rejection of independent
claim 1. We, likewise, reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 2, 3, 9–
23, and 26–33, which either depend from claim 1 or otherwise recite
determining a scan order for a residual block based on the direction in which
a residual DPCM is applied.

Appeal 2020-003305
Application 14/295,540

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

REVERSED
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 9–23, 26–
33
103 Naccari, Shen 1–3, 9–23,
26–33