Ex Parte Coban et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 201813529508 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/529,508 06/21/2012 15150 7590 11/02/2018 Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A. 1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100 Woodbury, MN 55125 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Muhammed Zeyd Coban 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. 1010-883US01/l 12606 5059 EXAMINER HAQUE, MD NAZMUL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2487 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/02/2018 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 MUHAMMED ZEYD COBAN, MARTA KARCZEWICZ, IN SUK CHONG, and XIANGLIN WANG Appeal2016-008139 Application 13/529,508 Technology Center 2400 Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and MATTHEW J. MCNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, 14--16, 18-33, 35--40, and 58---69. Claims 4, 9, 13, 17, 34 and 41 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal2016-008139 Application 13/529,508 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention is directed to quantization in video coding, and more specifically to reducing the amount of data that is stored during quantization. Spec. ,r,r 2, 26. Claims 1 and 28, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of coding video data comprising: identifying a plurality of quantization parameters (QPs) associated with a plurality of reference blocks of video data; generating a reference QP for the plurality of reference blocks based on the plurality of QPs; replacing the plurality of QPs associated with the plurality of reference blocks with the reference QP in memory; and coding a block of video data based on the reference QP. 28. A method of coding video data comprising: determining a predicted reference QP for one or more reference blocks of video data, wherein the one or more reference blocks are used as a reference for coding a current block; determining an actual QP for each reference block of the one or more reference blocks; generating a delta reference QP for each reference block of the one or more reference blocks based on a difference between the actual QP and the predicted reference QP; storing the delta reference QPs for each reference block; and 2 Appeal2016-008139 Application 13/529,508 coding a QP for the current block of video data based on one or more of the stored delta reference QPs. REJECTIONS Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10-12, 14--16, 18-28, 31, 32, 33, 35, 38--40, and 58---69 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination ofChujoh (US 2006/0133481 Al; published June 22, 2006), Lee et al. (US 2007 /0047644 Al; published Mar. 1, 2007) ("Lee"), and Lee et al. (US 2008/0025401 Al; published January 31, 2008) ("Lee-2" or "Lee II"). Claim 7 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Chujoh, Lee, and Lee-2, and Puri et al. (US 6,134,269; issued Oct. 17, 2000) ("Puri"). Claims 29, 30, 36 and 37 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Chujoh, Lee, Lee-2, and Chang et al. (US 2008/0304562 Al; published Dec. 11, 2008) ("Chang"). ANALYSIS Claims 1, 10, 18, and 23 Dispositive Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Chujoh, Lee, and Lee-2 teaches or suggests "replacing the plurality of QPs associated with the plurality of reference blocks with the reference QP in memory," as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 10, 18, and 23? The Examiner relies on paragraphs 36 and 37 and Figure 1 of Lee-2 to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Final Act. 5; Ans. 4. The Examiner 3 Appeal2016-008139 Application 13/529,508 finds "it is clear that a QP adjuster 34 of an encoder QP controller 30 will be able to adjust or modify or replace QPs of reference frame which consist of block(s) with the reference QP which may have been stored in memory 20." Ans. 4 ( emphasis omitted). Appellants argue Lee-2 describes using measured real-time image complexity to control the data rate of an encoded bitstream. App. Br. 10. According to Appellants, Lee-2 "describes updating a variety of parameters, calculating a QP, and adjusting the QP of quantizer 106 appropriately." App. Br. 11 ( emphasis omitted). Appellants argue "the process of adjusting a QP of Lee II is clearly for to-be encoded blocks, rather than reference blocks as claimed." App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 2. Referring to Figure 1 of Lee-2, Appellants argue QP adjuster 34 provides a QP adjustment to quantizer 106, which applies quantization during an encoding process. App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants further argue "QP adjuster 34 is not responsible for replacing a plurality of reference QPs associated with a plurality of reference blocks ... [ and] is not even in communication with frame storage memory 20, which is responsible for storing reference blocks." App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 3. Therefore, Appellants argue, Lee-2 does not teach or suggest "replacing the plurality of QPs associated with the plurality of reference blocks with the reference QP in memory." App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 2. We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Lee-2 describes QP adjuster 34, which adjusts the QP of the quantizer 106 according to updated parameters. Lee-2 ,r 36. Lee-2 further describes that "QP adjuster 34 reflects the image complexity measured by the complexity measuring unit 35 and adjusts the QP." Lee-2 ,r 36, Fig. 2. For the reasons set forth by 4 Appeal2016-008139 Application 13/529,508 Appellants, we agree the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how this adjustment teaches or suggests "replacing the plurality of QPs associated with the plurality of reference blocks with the reference QP in memory," as recited by claim 1. Because we agree with at least one of Appellants' arguments we need not address the merits of Appellants' additional arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 10, 18, and 23. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 5-8, 11, 12, 14--16, 19-22, and 24--27. Claims 28, 35, 60, and 65 Dispositive Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Chujoh, Lee, and Lee-2 teaches or suggests "generating a delta reference QP for each reference block of the one or more reference blocks based on a difference between the actual QP and the predicted reference QP," as recited in independent claim 28 and commensurately recited in independent claims 35, 60, and 65? The Examiner relies on Chujoh and Lee to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Final Act. 9-10 (citing Chujoh ,r 54, Lee ,r,r 11-14, 16, 50, 77-79, Fig. 5); Ans. 7-9 (citing Chujoh ,r 54, Figs 1, 2, Lee ,r,r 11-14, 50, Fig. 5). Appellants argue "Chujoh does not describe determining any difference between any of the identified quantization parameters" but rather "simply describes that the quantization parameters Qmin and Qmax have values before and after Qo". App. Br. 16. 5 Appeal2016-008139 Application 13/529,508 Appellants further argue "Lee simply describes generating a new representative QP, e.g., in addition to quantization parameters QP0, QP1, QP2, and QP3." App. Br. 17. However, according to Appellants, "Lee does not disclose or suggest determining a difference between any QPs, much less an actual QP and a predicted reference QP." App. Br. 18. Instead, Appellants argue Lee teaches performing averaging calculations. App. Br. 19. We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Lee teaches using simple averaging, median, and area weighted averaging to obtain the motion block representing parameter QPn_o_subo- See Lee ,r,r 53-57, Fig. 5. Chujoh, likewise, simply describes that quantization parameters Qmin and Qmax are before and after the value of the reference quantization parameter Q0• Chujoh ,r 54. We do not see, and the Examiner has not sufficiently explained, how the cited portions of Chujoh, Lee, or the combination of the two, teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Because we agree with at least one of Appellants' arguments we need not address the merits of Appellants' additional arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 28, 35, 60, and 65. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 29-33, 36-40, 48, 59, 61---64, and 66-69. DECISION The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10- 12, 14--16, 18-33, 35--40, and 58---69 is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation