Ex Parte Banerji et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 2017

10074765 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2017)

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. PD-201157 9961 EXAMINER VO, TUNG T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/074,765 02/12/2002 Ashish Banerji 20991 7590 09/01/2017 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION CA/LA1 /A109 2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245 09/01/2017 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ASHISH BANERJI and KUMAR SWAMINATHAN Appeal 2016-001914 Application No. 10/074,7651 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1—12, 14—16, 24, 28, and 30—33.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appellants’ invention is a method and system for compressing video by grouping video frames that are only between consecutive I-frames into a video set of non-infra video frames, splitting the video set into a plurality of 1 The real party in interest is The DIRECTV Group, Inc. 2 Claims 13, 17-23, 25-27, 29 and 34 have been cancelled. Appeal 2016-001914 Application No. 10/074,765 homogeneous files, and individually compressing each of the homogeneous files. See Figs. 1 and 3; Spec. 2, 3, 5, 7, and 16; Abstract. Claims 1 and 24 are exemplary of the claims on appeal: 1. A method of compressing video, comprising: grouping video frames that are only between consecutive I-frames into a video data set: splitting the video data set into a plurality of homogeneous files; individually compressing each of the homogeneous files, wherein the plurality of homogenous files comprises a first homogenous file type comprising transformation coefficients, a second homogenous file type comprising motion vectors, and a third homogenous file type representing enhancement data, wherein said homogeneous files have similar statistical properties; and multiplexing the homogenous files into a bit stream by: generating an auxiliary file containing auxiliary information for interpreting the file in the bit stream; prefixing a corresponding header to each of the homogenous files, said header indicating a file size of a corresponding homogenous file; and concatenating each compressed file prefixed with the header to produce the bit stream. 24. An apparatus for compressing video, comprising: a processor configured to, group video frames that are only between consecutive I-frames into a video data set; split the video data set into a plurality of individual data 2 Appeal 2016-001914 Application No. 10/074,765 sequences, each individual data sequence comprising a homogeneous file; and individually compress each of the individual data sequences, wherein the plurality of individual data sequences comprises a first data sequence type representing transformation coefficients, a second data sequence type representing motion vectors, and a third data sequence type representing enhancement data, wherein the homogeneous files have similar statistical properties; and multiplex the homogenous files into a bit stream by: generating an auxiliary file containing auxiliary information for interpreting the files in the bit stream; prefixing a corresponding header to each of the homogenous files, said header indicating a file size of a corresponding homogenous file; an d concatenating each compressed file prefixed with the header to produce the bit stream. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Gonzales US 5,414,469 May 9, 1995 Kikuchi US 5,731,840 Mar. 24, 1998 Davis US 5,838,678 Nov. 17, 1998 Conklin US 6,765,964 B1 Jul. 20, 2004 Tahara US 6,560,282 B2 May 6, 2003 Nickerson US 5,926,222 Jul. 20, 1999 Banerji US 6,400,289 B1 Jun. 4, 2002 Sugahara US 6,683,987 B1 Jan. 27, 2004 Katayama US 6,836,564 B2 Dec. 28, 2004 3 Appeal 2016-001914 Application No. 10/074,765 Claims 1-5, 14, 15, 16/1-16/5, 16/14, 16/15, 24,3 30, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gonzales and Davis. Claims 6 and 16/6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gonzales, Davis, and Conklin. Claims 7 and 16/7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gonzales, Davis, and Tahara. Claims 8 and 16/8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gonzales, Davis, and Nickerson. Claims 9, 10, 16/9, and 16/10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gonzales, Davis, and Banerji. Claims 11, 12, 16/11, 16/12, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gonzales, Davis, and Katayama. Claims 32 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gonzales, Davis, and Sugahara. Claims 1-5, 16/1-16/5, 16/7, 16/14, 16/15, 24, and 30-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kikuchi and Sugahara. Claims 9, 10, 16/9, and 16/10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kikuchi, Sugahara, and Banerji. Claims 11, 12, 16/11, 16/12, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kikuchi, Sugahara, and Katayama. 3 The Examiner’s Answer includes claim 25, rather than claim 24, in the Statement of Rejection. However, claim 25 has been canceled, and the explanation of the rejection discusses the limitations of claim 24 in extensive detail. See Ans. 7. Therefore, we assume that the Examiner’s Answer meant to refer to claim 24 and not to claim 25. 4 Appeal 2016-001914 Application No. 10/074,765 Throughout this decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed [date]), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed [date]), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed [date]) for their respective details. ISSUES 1. Does the combination of Gonzales and Davis teach or suggest multiplexing homogeneous files into a bit stream, including prefixing a corresponding header to each of the homogeneous files, said header indicating a file size of a corresponding homogeneous file? 2. Does the combination of Kikuchi and Sugahara teach or suggest splitting the video data set into a plurality of homogeneous files, wherein said homogeneous files have similar statistical properties? ANALYSIS Rejection of Claims 1-5,14,15,16/1-16/5,16/14,16/15,24,30, and 31 over Gonzales and Davis Independent claim 1 recites a method of compressing video, comprising inter alia, multiplexing homogeneous files into a bit stream by generating an auxiliary file containing auxiliary information for interpreting the files in the bit stream; prefixing a corresponding header to each of the homogeneous files, said header indicating a file size of a corresponding homogeneous file; and concatenating each compressed file prefixed with the header to produce the bit stream. Independent claim 24 recites an apparatus for compressing video, including substantially identical limitations. 5 Appeal 2016-001914 Application No. 10/074,765 The Examiner admits that Gonzales does not teach these elements and cites Davis as supplying the missing teachings. Final Act. 4-5. The Examiner finds that Davis teaches generating an auxiliary file, citing sequence header 302 of Figure 4 of Davis. The Examiner further finds that Davis discloses prefixing a corresponding header (402, 502) to each of the homogeneous files, said header indicating a file size of a corresponding homogeneous file. Ans. 5. We disagree with the Examiner’s finding. Figure 2 of Davis illustrates the syntax of a packetized elementary stream (PES) packet. Davis col. 3:14-15. The payload of such a packet may carry a sequence of video frames or audio frames. Davis col. 3:42-43. Figure 3a illustrates the high level organization of a video bitstream 300. Davis col. 3:43-45. Such a video bitstream includes a sequence header 302, which includes a 32 bit sequence header code field 402. Davis col. 3:63-64; Fig. 4. Picture header 312 is also part of video bitstream 300, and includes a 32 bit picture start code field 502. Davis col. 4:7-8; Fig. 5. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not identified a teaching or suggestion in Davis (or Gonzales) of prefixing a corresponding header to each of the homogeneous files. App. Br. 10-11. Header fields 402 and 502 are each disclosed as a single header within video bitstream 300. We do not find disclosure within Davis that header code field 402 or picture start code field 502 are prefixed to each of a plurality of homogeneous files. We further find that sequence header code field 402, and picture start code field 502, do not indicate a file size of a corresponding homogeneous file. “The sequence header code field 402 is 000001B3 hex and identifies the beginning of a sequence header.” Davis col. 3:65-66. In other words, 6 Appeal 2016-001914 Application No. 10/074,765 code field 402 takes the same value whenever it is used. Davis does not disclose that it conveys information concerning a file size. Davis is not specific concerning the value of picture start code field 502, but it is similarly named and uses the same number of bits as sequence header code field 402. We find that the Examiner’s combination of Gonzales and Davis fails to disclose or suggest all the limitations of independent claims 1 and 24. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-5, 14, 15, 16/1-16/5, 16/14, 16/15,24, 30, and 31. Rejection of Claims 6-12,16/6-16/12,28,32, and 33 involving Gonzales and Davis Each of these claims depends from independent claim 1 or independent claim 24. We have reviewed Conklin, Tahara, Nickerson, Banerji, Katayama, and Sugahara, and we find that these references do not cure the deficiencies we have noted supra in the combination of Gonzales and Davis. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims over Gonzales and Davis as further modified by Conklin, Tahara, Nickerson, Banerji, Katayama, or Sugahara, for the same reasons given with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 24, supra. Rejection of Claims 1-5,16/1-16/5,16/7,16/14,16/15,24, and 30-33 over Kikuchi and Sugahara Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, “splitting the video data set into a plurality of homogeneous files,” “wherein said homogeneous files have similar statistical properties.” Independent claim 24 recites similar requirements. 7 Appeal 2016-001914 Application No. 10/074,765 With regard to the meaning of the term “homogeneous,” Appellants’ Specification states that “splitting serves to combine data components of similar nature, making the resulting files homogeneous, in that the data components have similar statistical properties. ... A lossless compression algorithm can subsequently exploit the similarities for excellent compression performance.” Spec. 126. The Examiner finds that the plurality of regions illustrated in Figure 2 of Kikuchi are considered a plurality of homogeneous files because the large regions and the small regions have similar properties as pixels and motion vectors. Ans. 36. We find that the Examiner erred because the Examiner fails to substantiate the allegation that the large regions and small regions are homogeneous. Figure 2 of Kikuchi illustrates that prediction circuit 12 divides the input video signal 11 into regions and performs motion compensation prediction of the input video signal so divided. See Kikuchi col. 11:8-25. The Examiner has not identified evidence that “large regions” or “small regions” have “similar statistical properties.” Kikuchi discloses only that prediction circuit 12 performs motion compensation prediction of large regions with low pixel accuracy, and at a second level, further divides large regions into small regions and effects motion compensation prediction of these small regions with high pixel accuracy. Kikuchi col. 11,11. 20—25. Kikuchi provides no information regarding whether these groupings into “regions” improves data compression performance, or combines data components of similar nature. We find, then, that the combination of Kikuchi and Sugahara fails to teach all the limitations of independent claims 1 and 24. We do not sustain 8 Appeal 2016-001914 Application No. 10/074,765 the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 1—5, 16/1—16/5, 16/7, 16/14, 16/15, 24, and 30—33 over Kikuchi and Sugahara. Rejection of claims 9-12 and 16/9-16/12 over Kikuchi, Sugahara, and Banerji or Katayama Each of these claims depends from independent claim 1 or independent claim 24. We have reviewed Banerji and Katayama, and we find that these references do not cure the deficiencies we have noted supra in the combination of Kikuchi and Sugahara. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims over Kikuchi and Sugahara, as further modified by Banerji or Katayama, for the same reasons given with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 24, supra. CONCLUSIONS 1. The combination of Gonzales and Davis does not teach or suggest multiplexing homogeneous files into a bit stream, including prefixing a corresponding header to each of the homogeneous files, said header indicating a file size of a corresponding homogeneous file. 2. The combination of Kikuchi and Sugahara does not teach or suggest splitting the video data set into a plurality of homogeneous files, wherein said homogeneous files have similar statistical properties. ORDER The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—12, 14—16, 24, 28, and 30-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 9