Ex Parte Coban et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2018

13529508 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2018)

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