Zhang, Wenhao et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 16, 2020

13996577 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 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.
13/996,577 06/21/2013 Wenhao Zhang 01.P47462US 1313
119829 7590 03/16/2020
Green, Howard, & Mughal LLP
5 Centerpointe Dr.
Suite 400
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
EXAMINER
DEMOSKY, PATRICK E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2020 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):
docketing@ghmip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte WENHAO ZHANG, YI-JEN CHIU,
LIDONG XU, BEIJING, YU HAN,
ZHIPIN DENG, and XIAOXIA CAI
____________________

Appeal 2019-001697
Application 13/996,577
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
IFTIKHAR AHMED, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s Final rejection of claims 35–57, 59–64, and 66.1 Appeal Br. 9.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Intel Corporation as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-001697
Application 13/996,577

2
Appellant has cancelled claims 1–34, 58, and 65. Final Act. 16, 23, and 26.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 35 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis,
formatting, and bracketed material added):
35. A method, comprising: at a scalable video decoder:
[A.] accessing, for a block of an enhancement layer (EL) frame
of scalable video content, multiple co-located blocks in one
of a lower level EL frame or a base layer (BL) frame; and
[B.] performing inter-layer residual prediction for a first
region of the block of the EL frame responsive to a first
block of the co-located blocks in the lower level EL frame
or base layer (BL) frame corresponding to the first region
being an intra coded block,
[i.] wherein only regions of the block of the EL frame
corresponding to intra coded blocks of the multiple
co-located blocks in the lower level EL frame or
base layer (BL) frame are inter-layer residual
predicted, and
[ii.] wherein performing inter-layer residual prediction
for the first region of the block of the EL frame
comprises:
[a.] determining a residual from the first block of the
co-located blocks in the lower level EL frame or
the BL frame;
[b.] applying an upsample filter and a refining filter
to the residual to generate an upsampled and
filtered residual; and
[c.] determining a predicted residual for the block of
the EL frame based at least in part on adding the
upsampled and filtered residual to a second
Appeal 2019-001697
Application 13/996,577

3
residual of the first region of the block of the EL
frame.
REFERENCES2
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Gou US 2007/0160137 A1 July 12, 2007
Sagetong US 2008/0165850 A1 July 10, 2008
Nakagami US 2011/0286526 A1 Nov. 24, 2011
Lui US 2015/0103900 A1 Apr. 16, 2015

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 35–54, 57, 59–64, and 66 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Gou,
Nakagami, and Sagetong. Final Act. 3–16. We select claim 35 as the
representative claim for this rejection. The contentions discussed herein as
to claim 35 are determinative as to this rejection.
The Examiner rejects claims 55 and 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over combination of Gou, Nakagami, Sagetong, and Liu.
Final Act. 17–18. The contentions discussed herein as to claim 35 are also
determinative as to this rejection.
Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address claims
36–57, 59–64, and 66 further herein.

2 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named
inventor/author only.
Appeal 2019-001697
Application 13/996,577

4

OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. Appellant’s contentions we discuss
are determinative as to the rejections on appeal. Therefore, Appellant’s
other contentions are not discussed in detail herein.
A.
The Examiner determines:
Sagetong discloses:
accessing, for a block of an enhancement layer (EL) frame
of scalable video content multiple co-located blocks in one of a
lower level EL frame or a base layer (BL) frame; and . . . .
performing inter-layer residual prediction for a first region
of the block of the EL frame responsive to a first block of the co-
located blocks in the lower level EL frame or base layer (BL)
frame corresponding to the first region being an intra coded
block . . . .
wherein only regions of the block of the EL frame
corresponding to intra coded blocks of the multiple co-located
blocks in the lower level EL frame or base layer (BL) frame are
inter-residual predicted[.]
Final Act. 5–6 (citing Sagetong ¶¶ 8, 64, 88, Fig. 2).
B.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 35
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because:
[T]he scope and content of Guo, Nakagami, and Sagetong
fails to include
“performing inter-layer residual prediction for a
first region of the block of the EL frame responsive
to a first block of the co-located blocks in the lower
Appeal 2019-001697
Application 13/996,577

5
level EL frame or base layer (BL) frame
corresponding to the first region being an intra
coded block, wherein only regions of the block of
the EL frame corresponding to intra coded blocks of
the multiple co-located blocks in the lower level EL
frame or base layer (BL) frame are inter-layer
residual predicted”
as claimed.
Appeal Br. 12 (formatting added).
C.
The Examiner responds by determining that Sagetong’s paragraphs 8
and 64 together with newly cited paragraph 55:
[D]iscusses how inter-layer prediction is selectively enabled
based on a region of the EL corresponding with a region of the
BL, and since the BL can be encoded using intra-prediction
techniques, the limitation is met. . . . Sagetong has been shown
to disclose that inter-layer prediction is only enabled for regions
of the EL that correspond with regions of the BL. Returning to
paragraph 0008 of Sagetong, for regions of the enhancement
layer that do not spatially overlap (or correspond) with regions
of the base layer, inter-layer prediction may be avoided in favor
of temporal or spatial prediction. Hence the situational
enabling/disabling of inter-layer prediction based on
correspondence between the EL and BL is described.
Ans. 17.
D.
Appellant further contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because:
As asserted by the Examiner, Sagetong discloses base
layer blocks may be coded with spatial prediction techniques
(intra-coded). Examiner’s Answer at p. 17; Sagetong at ¶ 64.
However, Sagetong does not disclose performing inter-layer
residual prediction responsive to a base layer block being an intra
Appeal 2019-001697
Application 13/996,577

6
coded block as claimed. . . . In contrast, in Sagetong, inter-layer
residual prediction is performed in response to overlap between
the enhancement and base layer blocks without regard to the
coding mode used for the base layer block. . . . [T]he present
claims require performance of inter-layer residual prediction
in response to and only for base layer blocks that are intra
coded while Sagetong discloses interlayer residual in response to
block overlap without regard to the coding mode of the base layer
block.
Reply Br. 10–11 (emphasis added).
E.
As articulated by the Federal Circuit, the Examiner’s burden of
proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re
Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“[P]reponderance of the
evidence is the standard that must be met by the PTO in making
rejections.”). “A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a
factual basis.” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). “The
Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its
rejection. It may not . . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or
hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” Id. We
conclude the Examiner’s analysis fails to meet this standard because the
rejection does not adequately explain the Examiner’s findings of fact.
Particularly, we agree with Appellant that the language of claim 35
requires “performance of inter-layer residual prediction in response to and
only for base layer blocks that are intra coded,” and we disagree with the
Examiner’s reasoning that Sagetong alone without more is sufficient to show
the argued claim limitation. We conclude, consistent with Appellant’s
Appeal 2019-001697
Application 13/996,577

7
arguments that there is insufficient articulated reasoning to support the
Examiner’s finding that Sagetong discloses, the argued claim limitation.
Therefore, we conclude that there is insufficient articulated reasoning
to support the Examiner’s final conclusion that claim 35 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s
invention.

CONCLUSION
The Appellant has demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 35–57, 59–64, and 66 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 35–57, 59–64, and 66 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
35–54, 57,
59–64, 66
103 Gou, Nakagami,
Sagetong
35–54,
57, 59–
64, 66
55, 56 103 Gou, Nakagami,
Sagetong, Liu
55, 56
Overall
Outcome

35–57,
59–64, 66

REVERSED