Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 2, 2021

2020003316 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 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. 13/758,544 02/04/2013 Alexandros Tourapis 082438.026401 9939 139020 7590 08/02/2021 BakerHostetler / Apple Inc. Washington Square, Suite 1100, 1050 Connecticut Ave, NW Washington, DC 20036-5304 EXAMINER MAHMUD, FARHAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2021 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): eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ALEXANDROS TOURAPIS and ANTHANASIOS LEONTARIS ____________ Appeal 2020-003316 Application 13/758,544 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5, 9–12, 14–22, 24–26, and 28–36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We REVERSE. 1 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc. (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal 2020-003316 Application 13/758,544 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The Appellants’ claimed invention relates to video display preference filtering (Spec., Title). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A computer-implemented method comprising, by an encoder: in a coding system employing a plurality of sequential filters for filtering decoded video data, where the output of each previous filter feeds into the input of each subsequent filter: selecting, for a new frame of video data to be coded, which of the plurality of filters is to be applied to produce a first filtered output during decoding of the new frame of video data before outputting the decoded new frame of video data to a display, and independently selecting, for the same new frame of video data to be coded, which of the plurality of filters is to be applied to produce a second filtered output during decoding of the new frame of video data for generating a reference picture, coding the new frame of video data according to predictive coding techniques; and transmitting the coded new frame of video data along with metadata for the coded new frame of video data, the metadata for the coded new frame of video data including first metadata representing the first filter selections for outputting the frame to the display and second metadata, separate from the first metadata, representing the second filter selections for generating the reference picture of the frame. Appeal 2020-003316 Application 13/758,544 3 THE REJECTION The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the rejections: Name Reference Date Jostschulte US 2003/0086105 A1 May 8, 2003 Lu US 2004/0179610 A1 Sept. 16, 2004 Hattori US 2009/0290805 A1 Nov. 26, 2009 Chong US 2012/0051438 A1 Mar. 1, 2012 The following rejection is before us for review: Claims 1, 5, 9–12, 14–22, 24–26, and 28–36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Chong, Hattori, Lu, and Jostschulte. FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence2. ANALYSIS The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because the claim features: “1) two independent filter selections from a plurality of sequential filters, both applied to the same item of decoded video; and 2) encoding separate metadata indicating the independent filter selections,” and these claimed limitations are not obvious in view of the cited prior art in the rejection of record (Appeal Br. 10). 2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). Appeal 2020-003316 Application 13/758,544 4 In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection of record is proper (Final Action 9–13; Ans. 4–10). We agree with the Appellant. Here, claim 1 requires “employing a plurality of sequential filters” for video data by “selecting, for a new frame of video to be coded” a plurality of filters; and then “independently selecting, for the same new frame of video data” filters to be applied to produce second filtered output for a reference picture. Further, the claim requires the coded new frame of video is transmitted along with “first metadata representing the first filter selections for outputting the frame to display” and “second metadata, separate from the first metadata, representing the second filter selections for generating the reference picture of the frame.” We agree with the Examiner that Chong teaches a selecting a new frame of video to be coded (Chong ¶¶ 19, 43). We also agree with the Examiner that Hattori teaches the filtering of a first frame of data by smoothing in a post-filter operation, which is a new filter for the same frame of video (Hattori ¶ 39). We also agree that Jostschulte teaches sequential filtering (Jostschulte, Fig. 2). However, the claim language also includes the limitation, for transmitting the coded new frame of video data along with metadata for the coded new frame of video data, the metadata for the coded new frame of video data including first metadata representing the first filter selections for outputting the frame to the display and second metadata, separate from the first metadata, representing the second filter selections for generating the reference picture of the frame. (Claim 1, emphasis added). Appeal 2020-003316 Application 13/758,544 5 Here, the Examiner cites to Lu and paragraphs 39 and 40 as disclosing the above italicized claim limitations (Non-Final Act. 12). Paragraph 39 of Lu discloses higher coefficient values for stronger filtering, and lower coefficient values for weaker filtering. Paragraph 40 of Lu discloses filter parameters FilterOffsetrA and FilterOffsetrB (which serve as metadata) used to determine a filter mode and strength. However, the FilterOffsetrA and FilterOffsetrB cannot represent both first metadata for “first filter selections for outputting the frame” and second metadata for “second filter selections for generating the reference picture of the frame” as claimed, because the “loop filter unit 122” “operate[s] alternatively as a deblocking loop filter and a reference picture filter” (Lu ¶ 38 (emphasis added)). For these above reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims. We, likewise, do not sustain the rejection of the remaining independent claims 19, 21, 22, 26, 31, and 32, which recite similar limitations, and their dependent claims for the same reasoning as given above. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 5, 9–12, 14-22, 24–26, and 28–36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Chong, Hattori, Lu, and Jostschulte Appeal 2020-003316 Application 13/758,544 6 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5, 9–12, 14–22, 24– 26, 28–36 103 Chong, Hattori, Lu, Jostschulte 1, 5, 9–12, 14–22, 24– 26, 28–36 REVERSED