Vid Scale, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 19, 2020

14743662 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 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.
14/743,662 06/18/2015 Yuwen He IDC-12193US02 1876
119110 7590 05/19/2020
Invention Mine IDC
216 S. Jefferson
Suite 102
Chicago, IL 60661
EXAMINER
SOSANYA, OBAFEMI OLUDAYO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2423
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/19/2020 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):
bob@inventionmine.com
docket@inventionmine.com
uspto@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte YUWEN HE, XIAOYU XIU,
YAN YE, and RALPH NEFF
____________________

Appeal 2019-002413
Application 14/743,662
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, BRYAN F. MOORE, and BETH Z. SHAW,
Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 illustrates the invention as follows, with disputed
elements highlighted in italics:

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Vid Scale, Inc., is the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002413
Application 14/743,662

2
1. A method of generating a bit stream encoding a video including an
input video block, the method comprising:
identifying a selected set of candidate blocks for prediction of the
input video block, where the identification of the selected set includes
performing a hash-based search of available video blocks;
for each of the candidate blocks in the selected set, determining a
correlation between luma and chroma components of the input video block
and luma and chroma components of the respective candidate blocks;
selecting a predictor block based on the correlation; and
encoding the input video block in the bit stream using the selected
predictor block for prediction of the input video block.
Appeal Br. 15, Claims Appendix.

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1–4, 11, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as
being anticipated by Tasi et al. (US 2010/0284471 A1; published Nov. 11,
2010) (“Tsai”).
Claims 5–7, 9, 13–16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Tsai; in view of Lee (US 2014/0044361 A1;
published Feb. 13, 2014) (“Lee”).
Claims 8 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable in view of a combination of Tsai with Sentinelli et al. (US
2013/0336590 A1; published Dec. 19, 2013 (“Sentinelli”).
Claims 10 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable in view of a combination of Tsai with Puri (US
2005/0031219 A1; published Feb. 10, 2005 (“Puri”).
Appeal 2019-002413
Application 14/743,662

3
ANALYSIS
In the Brief, Appellant asserts, among other things, the following
claimed elements in independent claim 1 are not taught by Tsai:
identifying a selected set of candidate blocks for prediction of
the input video block, where the identification of the selected set
includes performing a hash-based search of available video blocks;
(hereinafter the hash-based search limitation); and
for each of the candidate blocks in the selected set, determining
a correlation between luma and chroma components of the input
video block and luma and chroma components of the respective
candidate blocks;
(hereinafter the luma/chroma correlation limitation).
See Appeal Br. 9–10.
We agree.
Regarding the hash-based search limitation, Appellant argues: “The
examiner erroneously rejected claim 1 based on the contention that a hash-
based search is disclosed in paragraph [0044] of Tsai. See Final Act. at 4.”
Appellant argues Paragraph [0044] of Tsai does not disclose that feature and
“makes no mention of any kind of searching, “hash-based” or otherwise.”
Id.
In response to the argument that paragraph [0044] of Tsai does not
disclose any “hash-based" search, the examiner cites Tsai’s reference to a
“hash table” in a list of storage media.
[V]ideo encoder 20 may store the temporal spatial dependency
for each block of a video frame. . . . The temporal spatial
dependency information may be stored in a database, lookup
table, linked list, hash table, tree, binary tree, or any other type
of data structure in a storage device such memory.

Appeal 2019-002413
Application 14/743,662

4
Tsai ¶ 43 (cited in Final Act. at 2).
Appellant responds “Tsai’s perfunctory mention of a ‘hash table’ does not
equate to the claim elements of ‘identifying a selected set of candidate
blocks’ using “a hash-based search.’” Appeal Br. 9.
We agree with Appellant regarding the disclosure of Tsai. The
Examiner has not established, and we do not find, where the cited portions
of Tsai discloses the hash-based search limitation. To affirm the Examiner
on this record would require considerable speculation on our part. We
decline to engage in speculation. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA
1962).
Regarding the luma/chroma correlation limitation, Appellant argues:
The rejection of claim 1 depends on the contention that this step is
disclosed in ¶ [0054] of Tsai. See Final Act. at 4. In all of Tsai, only a
single sentence makes any mention of luma or chroma components.
Neither this sentence nor any other portion of Tsai discloses any step
of determining a correlation using luma or chroma components. The
sentence merely lists the block sizes for which inter prediction and
intra prediction are available in the H.264 video coding standard.
Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis ours).
Again, we agree with Appellant’s interpretation of the disclosure of
Tsai. The Examiner has not established, and we do not find, where the cited
portions of Tsai discloses the luma/chroma correlation limitation. To affirm
the Examiner on this record would again require considerable speculation on
our part. We decline to engage in speculation. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d at
862.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1. Because these determinations resolve the appeal with
Appeal 2019-002413
Application 14/743,662

5
respect to claims 1, 11, and 20, and their respective dependent claims, we
need not address Appellant’s other arguments.
CONCLUSION
In summary:

REVERSED

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 11, 12,
20
102(a) Tsai 1–4, 11, 12,
20
5–7, 9,
13–16, 18
103 Tsai, Lee 5–7, 9,
13–16, 18
8, 17 103 Tsai, Sentinelli 8, 17
10, 19 103 Tsai, Puri 10, 19
Overall
Outcome
1–20