Ex Parte Bartczak

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 11, 2018

13760066 (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/760,066 02/06/2013
125968 7590 05/15/2018
V orys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP
(ImgTec)
1909 K St., N.W.
Ninth Floor
Washington, DC 20006
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Krzysztof Bartczak
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
070852.000098 8285
EXAMINER
BECK,LERON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/15/2018 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):
patlaw@vorys.com
vmdeluca@vorys.com
rntisdale@vorys.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KRZYSZTOF BARTCZAK
Appeal2017-010955
Application 13/760,066
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JON M. JURGOV AN, and SHARON PENICK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-14. 1 App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Imagination Technologies
Limited. App. Br. 1. Claims 1-16 are pending in this application; claims 15
and 16 have been objected to as being dependent but would be allowable if
rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base
claims and any intervening claims. Final Act. 1, 11.
Appeal2017-010955
Application 13/760,066
Introduction
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a video
data processing system for decoding, in parallel, a compressed motion
compensated video image sequence (sequential pictures) transmitted as a set
of motion vectors together with a reference frame of video data ( 50). Spec.
1:4--5, 3:29--33, Fig. 5. In particular, upon receiving at a first decoding core
(core 1) one or more blocks for a previous picture in the sequence, the
motion vectors for the previous picture are forwarded to a second core (core
2) so as to start decoding one or more blocks of the next picture in the
sequence upon detecting the maximum extent of the motion vectors for the
more or more blocks. Spec. 4:33-5: 12.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 is representative, and reads as follows:
1. A method for decoding a compressed motion compensated
video image sequence from image data comprising a plurality of
reference pictures and motion vectors for deriving successive pictures
in the sequence from preceding pictures in the sequence, the motion
vectors having a maximum vertical extent corresponding to a number
of lines of image data, the method comprising:
receiving, at a first decoding core, image data for deriving a
picture in the sequence;
deriving, at the first decoding core, said picture from the
received image data;
receiving, at a second decoding core, motion vectors for
deriving a next picture in the sequence from said picture derived by
the first decoding core;
detecting, from the received motion vectors, the maximum
extent of the motion vectors for one or more blocks of the next
picture;
determining that, according to the detected maximum extent of
the motion vectors for said one or more blocks, an area of said picture
2
Appeal2017-010955
Application 13/760,066
pointed to by the motion vectors for said one or more blocks has been
decoded; and
responsive to said determination, commencing decoding, at the
second decoding core, the one or more blocks of the next picture
using the motion vectors for the one or more blocks, before the first
decoding core has completed decoding of said picture.
App. Br. 14 (Claims App'x).
Kikuchi et al.
Xiao et al.
Watanabe
Choudhary
Prior Art Relied Upon
US 2004/0008784 Al
US 2010/0046627 Al
US 2010/0061464 Al
US 8,498,334 B 1
Jan. 15,2004
Feb.25,2010
Mar. 11, 2010
July 30, 2013
Meenderinck et al., Parallel Scalability of Video Decoders, J. SIGN.
PROCESS. SYST. 1-22 (2008).
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1--4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Meenderinck, Choudhary, and
Kikuchi. Final Act. 4--7.
Claims 5-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Meenderinck and Watanabe. Final
Act. 8-10.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination ofMeenderinck, Choudhary, Kikuchi and Xiao. Final
Act. 10-11.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination of Meenderinck and Watanabe. Final Act. 11.
3
Appeal2017-010955
Application 13/760,066
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant's arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 7-15, and the Reply Brief, pages 1-5. 2
Appellant argues that the Examiner's statement of "taking the
apparatus" of Meenderinck "to disclose decoding ... as taught by Choudhary"
is not understood so as to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
rejection. App. Br. 8. Likewise, Appellant argues the statement of "taking
the apparatus disclosed by [Meederinck] and Choudhary to disclose
receiving ... as taught by [Kikuchi]" is confusing. Id. Further, Appellant
argues the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Meenderinck,
Choudhary, and Kikuchi teaches or suggests "detecting from the received
motion vectors, the maximum extent of the motion vectors." App. Br. 7-8.
In particular, Appellant argues Meenderinck discloses a system for
performing macro-block (MB) level parallelization wherein a plurality of
processors decode MBs scheduled for decoding when all dependencies of a
MB have been satisfied (i.e. each MB is sent to a processor when all
constraints/dependencies for the MB has been resolved) regardless of scan,
row or frame order. Id. at 8-9 (citing Meederinck sec. 4.2). Appellant also
argues that Meenderinck discloses motion vectors in each MB has a length
2 Rather than reiterate Appellant's arguments, and the Examiner's findings
and conclusions in their entirety, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February
21, 2017) ("Appeal Br."), the Reply Brief (filed August 23, 2017) ("Reply
Br."), the final Action (mailed May 31, 2016("Final Act.") and the Answer
(mailed June 23, 2017) ("Ans.") for the respective details. We have
considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised
in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have made but chose
not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal2017-010955
Application 13/760,066
limited by the standard 512 pixels vertically. Id. at 9 (citing Meenderinck
4.2.6). According to Appellant, the disclosed 512 value is not the maximum
extent of a received motion vector as claimed; it is simply a theoretical
maximum. Id. Furthermore, Appellant argues that Meederinck teaches away
from the macroblock-level parallelism in the temporal domain. Id. at 10-11.
Additionally, Appellant argues that Choudhary' s disclosure of decoding a
motion vector (MV) of a first video frame after a portion of a previous video
frame has been decoded would frustrate Meenderinck' s teaching that a MB
is to be scheduled for decoding when all dependencies have been resolved.
Id. at 11. Likewise, Appellant argues that Choudhary's 512 pixels
theoretical limit does not teach detecting a maximum extent vector of the
motion vectors. Id. at 12 (citing Choudhary 4:40-47). Finally, Appellant
argues that Kikuchi's disclosure of performing a motion compensative
prediction from forward and backward frames does not cure the noted
deficiencies of Meenderinck and Choudhary. Id. at 12 (citing Kikuchi
ii 212).
These arguments are not persuasive. As correctly noted by the
Examiner, and undisputed by Appellant, Meenderinck discloses a
macroblock parallelism wherein video data is partitioned into macroblocks
that are decoded in parallel by different processors in accordance with the
H.264 standard. Ans. 4---6 (citing Meenderinck Sec. 4.2.6). Each
macroblock contains a motion vector length of 512 pixels vertical and 2048
pixels horizontal. Id. According to Meenderinck, it is not necessary to wait
until the frame is completely decoded before decoding a next frame. Id.
That, is, once the reference areas of a current frame are decoded, the
decoding of the next frame can start. Id. Likewise, Choudhary discloses
5
Appeal2017-010955
Application 13/760,066
staggered parallelized video decoding system in accordance with the H.264
video standard wherein macro block of a video frame 1 can be decoded after
a portion of a video frame 0 has been decoded but before the entire frame 0
is decoded, the video frame having a search range of 512 lines. Choudhary
5: 13-17. Although Appellant correctly notes that the cited textual portions
of Meenderinck and Choudhary relied upon by the Examiner are cumulative,
we do not agree with Appellant that they are not properly relied upon to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. We are satisfied that the
Examiner has made the requisite findings and inquiries necessary to satisfy
the prima facie obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 so as to put
Appellant on notice of the rejection of claims 1-14.
Next, as correctly noted by the Examiner, Appellant's Specification is
devoid of an expressed definition for "maximum extent of the motion
vector". Ans. 12. Accordingly, the cited limitation must be given its
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellant's disclosure, as
explained in In re Morris:
[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant's specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also In re
Zietz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (stating that "claims must be
interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow."). Our reviewing
court further states, "the 'ordinary meaning' of a claim term is its meaning to
the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent." Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
6
Appeal2017-010955
Application 13/760,066
415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane). Appellant's Specification
states in relevant part:
In the H. 264 coding technique, for streams that are within the defined
level 5.1, the maximum vertical extent of a motion vector used to
derive a current picture from a previous picture is 512 pixels. This is
equivalent to 32 rows of 16x16 pixel macroblocks. Thus, the next line
of macroblocks will go from lines 513 to 544. For a high definition
picture of 1920 pixels wide by 1088 pixels high, this effectively means
that the row of macroblocks commencing after line 512 and ending at
line 544 needs to be received or decoded for a previous picture before
the first row of macro blocks in the current picture can commence
being decoded since a motion vector starting from the row of
macroblocks ending on line 544 in the previous picture may be used
to derive a macroblock in the first line in a current picture.
Spec. 4:8-16 (emphasis added).
We agree with the Examiner that under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, the "maximum extent of the motion vector" is a motion vector
having a vertical length of 512 lines consistent with Appellant's
Specification. Ans. 12. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that
Meenderinck's disclosure of decoding a received macroblock having 512
lines teaches decoding a motion vector upon detecting the maximum extent
from the received motion vector, as required by claim 1. Id.
Further, we do not agree with Appellant that Meenderinck' s
parallelized decoding or Choudhury's staggered parallelized decoding
teaches away from Meenderinck because both references are concerned with
parallel decoding of macro blocks, in accordance with H.264 standard, such
that decoding of a subsequent video frame can start as soon as a motion
vector of 512 lines in a preceding video frame is decoded. Finally,
7
Appeal2017-010955
Application 13/760,066
Appellant's argument regarding Kikuchi lacks merit because Kikuchi is not
relied upon to teach the disputed limitations.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we are not persuaded or error
in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2--4, and 13, because Appellant has
either not presented separate patentability arguments or has reiterated
substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
patentability of claim 1 above, those claims fall therewith. See 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding the rejection of claims 5-12, and 14, Appellants argue the
combination of Meederink and Watanabe/Xiao does not does not teach or
suggest the disputed limitations argued above. App. Br. 12-13. This
argument is not persuasive. As discussed above, we find no such
deficiencies in Meederink for Watanabe or Xiao to remedy. Accordingly,
we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claims 5-14.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's obviousness
rejections of claims 1-14, as set forth above.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8