Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 2018

13779468 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/779,468 02/27/2013 15150 7590 11/30/2018 Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A. 1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100 Woodbury, MN 55125 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ying Chen 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. 1212-160US01/121632 7229 EXAMINER ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/30/2018 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): pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YING CHEN, YE-KUI WANG, and MARTAKARCZEWICZ Appeal2017-008413 Application 13/779,468 1 Technology Center 2400 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 8-14, 16, 18-23, 25, 27-33, 35, and 37--46, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 2 1 Appellants identify Qualcomm Incorporated, as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 4.) 2 Our Decision refers to the Specification ("Spec.") filed February 27, 2013, the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed June 27, 2016, the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed December 20, 2016, the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed March 21, 2017, and the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed May 18, 2017. Appeal2017-008413 Application 13/779,468 CLAIMED INVENTION The claims are directed to methods and devices for encoding and decoding video data having "a network abstraction layer (NAL) unit that includes at least a first syntax element and a second syntax element," the first syntax element indicating the NAL unit type, and the second syntax element indicating "whether a NAL unit header of the NAL unit includes an Advanced Video Coding (A VC)-compatible 3-dimensional video (3DV) header extension or includes a Multiview Video Coding (MVC)-compatible 3DV header extension." (Spec. ,r 2; Abstract.) Claims 1, 10, 20, 29, 39, 40, 41, and 42 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for encoding video data, the method compnsmg: receiving, by a video encoder comprising one or more processors that comprise circuits, video data that comprises pictures; generating, by the video encoder, a bitstream that comprises a series of Network Abstraction Layer (NAL) units, the series ofNAL units including a plurality of coded slice NAL units that contain coded slices of the pictures of the video data, wherein generating the bitstream comprises: generating a first syntax element in a particular NAL unit in the series of NAL units, the first syntax element being a NAL unit type syntax element indicating a NAL unit type of the particular NAL unit, the first syntax element having a value equal to 21, wherein NAL units having NAL unit type syntax elements with values equal to 21 belong to a particular NAL unit type, wherein encoded slices of texture view components of the video data and depth view components of the video data are encapsulated within NAL units that belong to the particular NAL unit type; 2 Appeal2017-008413 Application 13/779,468 generating a second syntax element in the particular NAL unit in addition to the first syntax element, the second syntax element being a flag, the second syntax element having a first value indicating a NAL unit header of the particular NAL unit includes an Advanced Video Coding (A VC)-compatible 3DV header extension, the second syntax element having a second, different value indicating the NAL unit header of the particular NAL unit includes a Multi-View Coding (MVC)-compatible 3DV header extension instead of the A VC-compatible 3DV header extension, MVC-compatible 3DV being an extension of an MVC extension of A VC, the A VC-compatible 3DV header extension including syntax elements associated with A VC- compatible 3DV and being of a first length, A VC- compatible 3DV being a different extension of A VC, and the MVC-compatible 3DV header extension having a different syntax structure from the A VC-compatible 3DV header extension, being of a second length different from the first length, and including syntax elements associated with MVC-compatible 3DV, both AVC- compatible 3DV and MVC-compatible 3DV allowing each of a plurality of views to contain both texture view components and depth view components; and outputting, by the video encoder, the bitstream. (App. Br. 68-88 (Claims App.).) REJECTIONS & REFERENCE (1) Claims 39 and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. (Final Act. 6-7.) (2) Claims 1--4, 6, 8-14, 16, 18-23, 25, 27-33, 35, and 37--46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter. (Final Act. 9.) 3 Appeal2017-008413 Application 13/779,468 (3) Claims 1--4, 6, 8-14, 16, 18-23, 25, 27-33, 35, and 37--46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(e) based on Tian et al. (US 2012/0044322 Al, published Feb. 23, 2012) ("Tian"). (Final Act. 12-23.) (4) Claims 1--4, 6, 8-14, 16, 18-23, 25, 27-33, 35, and 37--46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Tian. (Final Act. 12-23.) ANALYSIS Rejection of Claims 3 9 and 40 underÂ§ 112, second paragraph Independent claims 39 ( directed to a video encoding device) and 40 ( directed to a video decoding device) recite the following means-plus- function claim limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (i) "means for receiving the video data," "means for generating a bitstream," "means for generating a first syntax element," "means for generating a second syntax element," and "means for outputting the bitstream" ( claim 39), and (ii) "means for receiving a bitstream," "means for receiving a particular NAL unit," "means for determining" what a NAL unit includes, and "means for decoding" ( claim 40). (App. Br. 81-83 (Claims App.).) The Examiner rejects claims 39 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention. (See Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 4, 17-19.) In particular, the Examiner acknowledges Appellants' Specification discloses a video encoder and a video decoder; however, the Examiner takes the position that (i) "a 'video encoder' or an 'encoding unit' is not a structure recognized in the art," (ii) "a 'video decoder' is not a structure recognized in the art," and (iii) the Specification's 4 Appeal2017-008413 Application 13/779,468 disclosure of a video encoder and decoder "does not provide a differentiated structure for each differentiated functionally claimed means" in claims 39 and 40. (Ans. 17-18; Final Act. 7.) Appellants argue the Specification adequately discloses the corresponding structures of the claimed "means" recited in claims 39 and 40. (App. Br. 23-29.) Particularly, Appellants point to the Specification's descriptions of video encoder 20 corresponding to the "means" recited in claim 39, and video decoder 30 corresponding to the "means" recited in claim 40. (App. Br. 24--29 (citing Spec. ,r,r 30, 37, 41, 46, 66, 80, 112-113, 116, Fig. 1 (encoder and decoder), Fig. 4 (encoder)); Reply Br. 6-7 (citing Spec. ,r,r 64--80, 106, Fig. 2 (encoder), Fig. 3 (decoder), Fig. 6 (decoder)).) We have reviewed the portions of the Specification cited by Appellants, and we agree with Appellants that the cited Specification portions describe adequate corresponding structures to achieve the claimed functions in claims 39 and 40. (See App. Br. 23-29.) We further agree with Appellants that encoders and decoders are technically recognized structures for performing video encoding and decoding functions. (Reply Br. 6.) We disagree with the Examiner's assertion that claims are indefinite because the "Specification does not provide a differentiated structure for each differentiated functionally claimed means." (See Final Act. 7.) We fail to see and the Examiner fails to adequately explain or provide sufficient evidence for why "a differentiated structure" is required "for each differentiated functionally claimed means" or function. (See Final Act. 7.) As discussed supra, Appellants' Specification adequately describes sufficient structure ( a video encoder and a video decoder) for performing the functions of claims 39 and 40. We agree with Appellants that "multiple 5 Appeal2017-008413 Application 13/779,468 means ... may, where appropriate, refer to different functions performed by the same structure (e.g., a processor, video encoder, or video decoder)." (App. Br. 24 (emphasis added).) Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 39 and 40, under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph, for indefiniteness. Rejection of Claims 1--4, 6, 8-14, 16, 18-23, 25, 27-33, 35, and 37-46 underÂ§ 101 The Examiner finds the claims are "directed to syntax of a signal" and to "an abstract idea directed to formatting data for storage or transmission," which are "not considered statutory as defined in Alice." (Ans. 5, 16; see also Final Act. 4, 9.) The Examiner further finds the "claims are not directed toward significantly more than an abstract idea itself." (Final Act. 9.) For these reasons, the Examiner concludes the claims are directed to unpatentable subject matter under Â§ 101. Id. To determine whether subject matter is patentable under Â§ 101, the Supreme Court has set forth a two part test "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). The first step in the analysis is to "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts," such as an abstract idea. Id. ( citation omitted). For computer-related technologies, "the first step in the Alice inquiry ... asks whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities" (which would be eligible subject matter) or instead 6 Appeal2017-008413 Application 13/779,468 "on a process that qualifies as an 'abstract idea' for which computers are invoked merely as a tool" (which would be ineligible subject matter). Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ( emphasis added). "If the claims are not directed to an abstract idea [or other patent-ineligible concept], the inquiry ends. If the claims are 'directed to' an abstract idea, then the inquiry proceeds to the second step of the Alice framework." McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The second step in the Alice framework is to consider the elements of the claims "individually and 'as an ordered combination"' to determine whether there are additional elements that "'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2350 ( citing Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78, 79 (2012)). In other words, the second step is to "search for an 'inventive concept'-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is 'sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself."' Id. at 2355 ( citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73). Here, the Examiner analogized the claims to Content Extraction, Digitech, Cyberfone, and In re Prater. (Ans. 5, 15, 20 (citing Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs.for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Cyberfone Sys., LLC v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc., 558 F. App'x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); Final Act. 8-9 (citing In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404---05 (CCPA 1969)).) However, the Examiner's reliance is misplaced because the claims in Content Extraction, for example, "merely 7 Appeal2017-008413 Application 13/779,468 recite the use of this existing scanning and processing technology to recognize and store data from specific data fields such as amounts, addresses, and dates," which was held to be ineligible subject matter because "humans have always performed these functions" and "'the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.'" Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347--48 ( quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358). Digitech 's claims were similarly held patent-ineligible for merely "describ[ing] a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations ... not tied to a specific structure or machine." Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350. We agree with Appellants, the "claims are directed to a specific improvement in computer capabilities" and "to a technological solution and not an abstract idea." (App. Br. 31, 34.) Particularly, Appellants' claims improve the functioning of computing devices that perform video encoding and decoding by "enhancing the abilities of such computing devices to process additional types ofNAL units," thereby providing data compression and performance advantages. (Reply Br. 7; App. Br. 34.) Thus, Appellants' claims are similar to the claims of Enfzsh. (Reply Br. 7, 10.) In Enfzsh, the Federal Circuit explained that the term "'directed to"' under step one of the Alice framework, "applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1335 (internal citation omitted). The Federal Circuit further explained that improvements in computer-related technology are not inherently abstract, and thus, it is "relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract 8 Appeal2017-008413 Application 13/779,468 idea, even at the first step of the Alice analysis." Id. Specifically, the Federal Circuit differentiated between claims that focus on an improvement in computer capabilities and claims that focus on an abstract idea "for which computers are invoked merely as a tool." Id. at 1336. In Enfzsh, the Federal Circuit determined that the claimed self-referential database table was directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer and not "a situation where general-purpose computer components are added post-hoc to a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation." Id. at 1339. Thus, the court determined that the claims at issue were not directed to an abstract idea and therefore the claims were patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. Id. Here, the video encoding and decoding devices and methods of independent claims 1, 10, 20, 29, 39, 40, 41, and 42 are directed to encoding or decoding 3-dimensional video data slices of texture and depth, encapsulated within NAL units of a particular NAL unit type. This particular NAL unit type has a second syntax element/flag indicating, to a decoder, which of two types of header extensions (A VC-compatible 3DV header extension and MVC-compatible 3DV header extension) is present in the NAL unit's header. (See, e.g., App. Br. 68-69 (claim 1).) These limitations of the independent claims describe a solution to a technological problem of signaling different formats of video data ( to be compressed or reconstructed by encoders and decoders) using a reduced number of NAL unit types. (See Spec. ,r,r 24--25.) As Appellants' Specification explains, A VC-compatible 3DV and MVC-compatible 3DV video coding formats (two extensions to the H.264/ A VC video coding standard) have different syntax structure, which 9 Appeal2017-008413 Application 13/779,468 may justify using two different new NAL unit types to accommodate these different syntax structures. (See Spec. ,r 24.) However, using two different new NAL unit types for this purpose is not preferable because "the number of available NAL unit types of the H.264/ A VC standard is limited and it may be desirable to conserve the remaining available NAL unit types for future extensions of the H.264/AVC standard." (See Spec. ,r 24.) Appellants' claimed solution to this problem encodes 3DV video using only one NAL unit type that instructs a video decoder how to reconstruct the video----i.e., based on the A VC-compatible 3DV format or the MVC-compatible 3DV format. (See Spec. ,r 25.) Particularly, Appellants' solution instructs a video decoder how to reconstruct the video, using a "second syntax element [indicating] whether the NAL unit header of the NAL unit includes the AVC-compatible 3DV header extension or an MVC-compatible 3DV header extension." (See Spec. ,r,r 25, 62---63, 82-84.) With Appellants' claimed solution, "separate NAL unit types do not need to be used for NAL units whose NAL unit header include AVC-compatible 3DV header extensions and NAL units whose NAL unit headers include MVC-compatible 3DV header extensions." (See Spec. ,r 25 (emphasis added).) Because claims 1, 10, 20, 29, 39, 40, 41, and 42 are directed to a specific solution to a technological problem, we find claims 1, 10, 20, 29, 39, 40, 41, and 42, and their dependent claims 2--4, 6, 8, 9, 11-14, 16, 18, 19, 21-23, 25, 27, 28, 30-33, 35, 37, 38, and 43--46 are not directed to an abstract idea. As the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under the first step of the Alice analysis, we need not proceed to step two of the analysis. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336, 1339. 10 Appeal2017-008413 Application 13/779,468 For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 8-14, 16, 18-23, 25, 27-33, 35, and 37--46 as directed to non- statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. Rejection of Claims 1--4, 6, 8-14, 16, 18-23, 25, 27-33, 35, and 37-46 underÂ§ 102(e) andÂ§ 103(a) With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Tian teaches generating a second syntax element in the particular NAL unit in addition to the first syntax element, the second syntax element being a flag, the second syntax element having a first value indicating a NAL unit header of the particular NAL unit includes an Advanced Video Coding (AVC)-compatible 3DV header extension, the second syntax element having a second, different value indicating the NAL unit header of the particular NAL unit includes a Multi-View Coding (MVC)-compatible 3DV header extension instead of the A VC-compatible 3DV header extension, MVC-compatible 3DV being an extension of an MVC extension of AVC, as claimed. (Final Act. 14; Ans. 12, 25-27.) Particularly, the Examiner finds "Tian indicates that flags like the 'second syntax element' can be placed in various NAL units including unit 21 .... Where the flag values for the 'MVC view_id of each 3DV layer can be set as in Table 5' and Table 6 of Tian." (Ans. 26-27 (citing Tian ,r,r 113,251, Figs. 5-6); Final Act. 14.) We do not agree. We agree with Appellants that Tian does not teach or suggest "generating a second syntax element in the particular NAL unit in addition to the first syntax element, the second syntax element being a flag" that may take two different values to indicate which of two header extension types (A VC-compatible 3DV and MVC-compatible 3DV) are in the NAL's header. As Appellants explain, "[t]he 'view_id' of a 3DV layer described in 11 Appeal2017-008413 Application 13/779,468 Table 5 of Tian is not a 'header extension'" or a second syntax element that when having one value indicates use of MVC syntax, and when having another value indicates use of a different syntax (an A VC-compatible 3DV syntax), as claimed. (App. Br. 44.) Rather, Tian's NAL unit having the MVC view_id in Table 5 always conforms to one video coding syntax-an MVC-compatible coding syntax. (See Tian ,r 114.) Similarly, Tian's NAL unit having the MVC view_id in Table 6 always conforms to one coding syntax-the MVC-compatible coding syntax. (See Tian ,r 117 .) Further, Tian's NAL unit having the syntax in Tables 8 and 9 always conforms to one coding syntax-a syntax that is not MVC-compatible. (See Tian ,r,r 119, 160-161.) Thus, Tian's view_id does not teach the claimed second syntax element flag, as the view_id does not indicate "which one of the 'MVC- compatible 3DV header extension' or the 'A VC-compatible 3DV header extension' is present in a 'NAL unit header"' as required by claim 1. (Reply Br. 16.) Additionally, the NAL units of Tian's Tables 5, 6, 8, and 9 have different NAL unit types. (See Tian ,r,r 113, 117, 119.) In contrast, in Appellants' claim 1, a NAL unit of one type "can include either of two types of extensions, namely one of the 'Advanced Video Coding (A VC)- compatible 3DV header extension' or the 'Multi-View Coding (MVC)- compatible 3DV header extension."' (App. Br. 47.) Tian does not teach a second syntax element flag that indicates whether either of these two header extensions is in a NAL unit header of a predetermined NAL unit type, as claimed. (Reply Br. 20.) The Examiner further reasons "Tian provides a statement that even where claimed formats are described separately, the various embodiments 12 Appeal2017-008413 Application 13/779,468 may be combined and thus make it obvious to generate the format features of the claims." (Ans. 30-31 (citing Tian ,r,r 167, 188).) The Examiner's rationale, however, has not provided an adequate reason based on rational underpinnings to explain why a skilled artisan would have been led to construct a NAL unit with a second syntax element.flag selectable between AVC-compatible 3DV and MVC-compatible 3DV coding syntaxes. On the contrary, Tian teaches that a NAL unit conforms to only one video coding syntax. (See Tian ,r 167 ("[C]ertain slices of a frame can be encoded in an MVC compatible way ... while other slices can be encoded using a non- MVC encoding mode").) See In re Chaganti, 554 F. App'x 917, 922 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("It is not enough to say that ... to do so would 'have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.' ... Such circular reasoning is not sufficient-more is needed to sustain an obviousness rejection.") Finally, we disagree with the Examiner that the claimed second syntax element merely "describes desired data content, but does not limit the claim to performing a particular step per In re Lowry; In re Ngai; In re Gulack." (See Ans. 29.) As Appellants explain, "it is precisely the semantics of the 'second syntax element' [in the encoded bitstream of video data] that make the 'second syntax element' useful (i.e., functional) when decoding video data." (Reply Br. 23.) That is, the generated second syntax element flag indicates whether the encoded video data should be reconstructed based on the A VC-compatible 3DV or the MVC-compatible 3DV coding formats. The claimed second syntax element generation "cannot be ignored or disregarded as 'printed matter."' (Reply Br. 23.) As the Examiner has not shown, nor have we found, that Tian teaches or suggests a NAL data structure with a second syntax element flag, as 13 Appeal2017-008413 Application 13/779,468 recited in claim 1, we are constrained not to sustain the Examiner's rejections of claim 1 under Â§ 102 and Â§ 103 based on Tian. We also do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation and obviousness rejections of independent claims 10, 20, 29, 39, 40, 41, and 42, for the same reasons as claim 1. (See App. Br. 52-62, 65----67.) We also do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation and obviousness rejections of claims 2--4, 6, 8, 9, 11-14, 16, 18, 19,21-23,25,27,28,30-33,35,37,38,and43--46 dependent from one of claims 1, 10, 20, and 29. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 39 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph, is reversed. The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6, 8-14, 16, 18-23, 25, 27-33, 35, and 37--46 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 is reversed. The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6, 8-14, 16, 18-23, 25, 27-33, 35, and 37--46 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) is reversed. The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6, 8-14, 16, 18-23, 25, 27-33, 35, and 37--46 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 14