Ying Chen et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 22, 2019

14328406 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 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.
14/328,406 07/10/2014 Ying Chen 1212-632US01/133969 4876
15150 7590 08/22/2019
Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A.
1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
EXAMINER
LEE, Y YOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/22/2019 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
pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte, YING CHEN, ADARSH KRISHNAN RAMASUBRAMONIAN,
and YE-KUI WANG
____________

Appeal 2018-005208
Application 14/328,4061
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3–16, and 18–26, which constitute all pending
claims. App. Br. 4, 12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to decoding video data. Abstract; Spec. ¶¶ 2–5,
34, 150, 167; Figs. 5, 8, 9.

1 The real party in interest is identified as QUALCOMM Incorporated. App.
Br. 3.

Appeal 2018-005208
Application 14/328,406

2
Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal
(emphasis added):
1. A method of decoding video data, the method comprising:
receiving, by a video decoder, a list of output layer sets in a video
bitstream;
receiving, by the video decoder, external from the video bitstream,
an index to a target output layer set in the list of output layer sets;
determining, by the video decoder, target output layers in the target
output layer set based on the index;
decoding, by the video decoder, at least the target output layers
from the video bitstream;
outputting, by the video decoder, the decoded target output layers
without outputting layers that are not targeted for output; and
selecting, by the video decoder, a decoded picture buffer (DPB) size
or sub-DPB size based at least partially on the index.

App. Br. 19 (Claims Appendix).

THE REJECTIONS2
Claims 1, 3–16, and 18–26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
being anticipated by Singer et al. (ISO/I EC 14495-15/FDIS + Cor1 Cor2 +
Amd1, International Organization For Standardization Organisation
lnternationale De Normalisation ISO/USC JTC1/SC29/WG11 Coding of
Moving Pictures and Audio (2009))(“Singer”). Final Act. 2; Non Final Act.
3–4 (dated 2/9/17).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue, inter alia, that the Examiner errs in finding Singer
discloses the claim 1 limitation “receiving, by the video decoder, external
from the video bitstream, an index to a target output layer set in the list of

2 The rejections of claim 6, 7, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are not stated
in the Final Action. See Final Act. 2; Non Final Act. 2–3.
Appeal 2018-005208
Application 14/328,406

3
output layer sets (also referred to as “disputed limitation”).” (Emphasis
added) App. Br. 35–39; Reply Brief 11–15.
In the Final Action, the Examiner refers to the findings in the Non
Final Action (dated 2/9/17), and additionally finds that Singer also discloses
the disputed claim 1 limitation “receiving, by the video decoder, external
from the video bitstream . . .” Final Act. 2. In particular, the Examiner
finds “Singer already discloses the concept of receiving, by the video
decoder (e.g. Annex F, MVC decoder), external from the video bitstream
(i.e. Annex D, metadata support for video data), an index to a target output
layer set (e.g. D.3.3 profile_level_idc).” Id.
In the Non Final Action, the Examiner finds
Singer discloses the same method of decoding video data as
specified in claims 1-26, the method comprising receiving a list of
output layer sets in a video bitstream (§F.1, "few predetermined sets of
output views"); receiving an index to at least one target output layer set
in the list of output layer sets (§F.8.3.3, the syntax element "track_id"
points at a track containing target output views; §F .8.3.1 ); determining
target output layers VCL in the at least one target output layer set based
on the index (§F.1, penultimate paragraph); decoding at least the target
output layers from the video bitstream (e.g. AVC decoding); and
outputting the decoded target output layers without outputting layers
that are not targeted for output (§F.7.2, "views required for decoding
the determined target output views", certain views are required for
decoding but are not target output views).

Non Final Act. 3–4.

Appellants argue that, even if the track-id of Singer is considered as
the index to a target output layer set recited in claim 1, Singer does not
disclose that the track-id is received by a video decoder external from a
Appeal 2018-005208
Application 14/328,406

4
video bitstream. App. Br. 6. According to Appellants, Singer expressly
discloses that track-id is included in the bitstream including other data of
Singer. Id. (citing Singer § F.8.3.1). Appellants argue the track-id is
included in a Multiview Group box, which itself is included in a Multiview
Information box, and these boxes are included in the bitstream that also
includes Advanced Video Coding (AVC) formatted data, such as encoded
video data. Id. (citing Singer §§ 1, 5.1, C. 1, F.3).
In the Answer, the Examiner finds that “Singer discloses in D.3.3 the
common profile_level index used for an output layer set (e.g. priority layer)”
and “notes that appellant's own specification, in Table 3, discloses using
such same profile_level index for the Video Parameter Set (VPS) in the
High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) standard.” Ans. 4.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants note that the Examiner’s Answer
appears to be referring to the “profile_level_idc” syntax element of Singer.
Reply Br. 3 (citing Singer D.3.3, set forth below):
profile_level_idc specifies the profile and level compliancy of
the bitstream of the priority layer identified by pr layer. profile level
_idc is the exact copy of the three bytes comprised of profile idc,
constraint_setO flag, constraint_setl _ flag, constraint_set2 flag,
constrainLset3 _ flag and level_idc, if these syntax elements were used
to specify the profile and level compliancy of the bitstream of the
priority layer.

Singer, D.3.3.
Appellants argue that a syntax element that specifies profile and level
compliancy is not the same as “an index to a target output layer set in a list
of output layer sets.” Id. at 4. Appellants further argue that the
profile_level_idc syntax element value is signaled for each available priority
Appeal 2018-005208
Application 14/328,406

5
layer and “[a] value that is signaled for each priority layer that indicates a
profile and level compliancy for the corresponding priority layer, per Singer,
is not at all the same as an index to a target output layer set in a list of output
layer sets, per Appellant's claim 1.” Id. (citing Singer D.3.2).
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
claims is found, either expressly or inherently described in a single prior art
reference, and arranged as required by the claim. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v.
Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
On the record before us, the Examiner’s finding that Singer, D.3.3.
discloses the disputed limitation is unsupported by sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the anticipation rejection, and we are persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments to the contrary. Singer D.3.3 does not expressly
describe a source external to the video bitstream nor does the Examiner
adequately explain how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
Singer discloses a source external to the video bitstream. Additionally, on
the record before us, Appellants’ argument that Singer’s profile_level_idc
syntax element value is not equivalent to the claim 1 “target output layer set
in a list of output layer sets.” is reasonable and persuasive.
In view of the above and constrained by the record before us, we do
not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 1, independent claims 15, 25,
and 26 which recite the disputed limitation, and dependent claims 2–14, and
16–24.
Because our decision with regard to the disputed limitation is
dispositive of the rejections, we do not address additional arguments raised
by Appellants.

Appeal 2018-005208
Application 14/328,406

6
DECISION

We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3–16, and 18–
26.

REVERSED