Ex Parte DemosDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 19, 201713272316 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/272,316 10/13/2011 Gary A. Demos 07314-0013007 5621 143308 7590 12/21/2017 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (Dolby) PO BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 EXAMINER LEE, Y YOUNG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2485 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/21/2017 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): PATDOCTC@fr.com patents @ dolby.com mguo @ dolby. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GARY A. DEMOS1 Appeal 2017-008409 Application 13/272,316 Technology Center 2400 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—3 and 5—22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 The real party in interest is Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2017-008409 Application 13/272,316 RELATED APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Appellant identifies a number of related appeals and interferences. App. Br. 1. INVENTION The invention is for improving compressed image chroma information in MPEG-like video compression systems. Spec. 14. Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below: 1. A method for decoding a color video image at a decoder using quantization parameters, the color video image comprising a plurality of macroblocks, the method comprising: at an encoder: utilizing a variable quantization step size and a quantization parameter (QP) to represent a size of a step where an increase in the QP corresponds to a larger quantization step size; accessing, for a first macroblock of the color video image, a first QP value; generating, for the first macroblock, a first bias value, wherein the first bias value is specific to at least one of a first chroma channel and a second chroma channel of the color video image for the first macroblock and is not used in dequantizing a luminance channel of the color video image for the first macroblock; encoding the first macroblock; transmitting, from the encoder to a decoder, the first QP value for the first macroblock and the first bias value for the first macroblock; at the decoder: receiving, from the encoder, the first QP value for the first macroblock and the first bias value for the first macroblock; decoding the first macroblock of the color video image, the decoding comprising: 2 Appeal 2017-008409 Application 13/272,316 dequantizing the luminance channel of the first macroblock utilizing the first QP value without using the first bias value; and dequantizing at least one of the first chroma channel and the second chroma channel of the color video image for said first macroblock utilizing a second QP value derived from the first QP value and the first bias value, and wherein the first chroma channel is a first color difference channel, wherein the second chroma channel is a second color difference channel, and wherein said second QP value is derived by at least applying the first bias value to the first QP value to provide a first intermediate result. REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1—3 and 5—22 under 35U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 2. The Examiner rejected claims 1—3 and 5—15 under 35U.S.C. § 112 as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Final Act. 3. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6, 12, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Haskell (US 2006/0002467 Al, pub. Jan. 5, 2006) and Gillard (GB 2,226,635 A, pub. Nov. 3, 1993). Final Act. 4. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 5, 7—11, and 13—15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Haskell, Gillard, and Ribas-Corbera (US 6,535,251, issued Mar. 18, 2003). Final Act. 4. The Examiner rejected claims 16—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Haskell, Gillard, and AAPA. Final Act. 4. 3 Appeal 2017-008409 Application 13/272,316 ANALYSIS SECTION 112 REJECTIONS We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—3 and 5—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for failing to comply with the written description requirement. As Appellant points out, in a related appeal, the Board has already concluded that the Specification meets the written description requirement for a similar limitation, "receiving, at a decoder from an encoder, a coded bitstream including a luminance quantization parameter, a first chroma bias value and a second chroma bias value for a macroblock." App. Br. 6 (quoting Decision on Appeal, Appeal No. 2014-009125, Patent Application No. 13/197,248, slip op. at 4—6 (PTAB June 8, 2016)). In response, the Examiner appears to contend that even though the Specification sufficiently describes transmitting a macroblock, it somehow fails to satisfy the written description requirement with respect to “the first macroblock,” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 3. However, we agree with Appellant that one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude that the macroblock includes “the first macroblock,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1—3 and 5—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for failing to comply with the written description requirement. We also agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—3 and 5—15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for failing to comply with the enablement requirement. "[T]he PTO bears an initial burden of setting forth a reasonable explanation as to why it believes that the scope of protection provided by that claim is not adequately enabled by the description of the invention provided in the specification of the application . . . ." In re Wright, 4 Appeal 2017-008409 Application 13/272,316 999 F.2d 1557, 1561-62 (citing In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223-24 (CCPA 1971)). "[A] patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art." Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Lindemann Maschinenfabrikv. American Hoist and Derrick, 730 F.2d 1452, 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not sufficiently set forth a reasonable explanation as to why the Examiner believes that the scope of protection is not adequately enabled by the description of the invention provided in the Specification. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1—3 and 5—15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for allegedly failing to comply with the enablement requirement. SECTION 103 REJECTION Appellant presents multiple arguments as to why the Examiner has erred. In particular, Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because Haskell and Gillard fail to teach or suggest "receiving, from the encoder, the first QP value for the first macroblock and the first bias value for the first macroblock," where a QP value for dequantizing a chroma channel for the first macroblock is "derived from the first QP value and the first bias value," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 16—17. We agree with Appellant. The Examiner responds that Gillard illustrates that it is well known in the art that chroma QP and QP bias values are processed separately from the luminance values. Ans. 3. The Examiner relies on Haskell to show transmitting a QP bias value. Id. at 4. The Examiner concludes that the 5 Appeal 2017-008409 Application 13/272,316 combination of Haskell and Gillard teaches the disputed limitation. Id. at 4— 5. The Examiner finds: Gillard’s known improvement could have been applied in the same way to the base process of Haskell and the results would have been predictable and resulted in separately updating the QP values using separate bias values for the different channels. Furthermore, both Haskell and Gillard use and disclose similar system functionality (i.e. transmitting and updating QP values for both luminance and chrominance channels from the encoder to the decoder) so that the combination is more easily implemented. Ans. 6. We agree that modifying Haskell in the manner proposed by the Examiner, however, would render useless the nonlinear scaling function of Haskell, which “provides different values for the chrominance and luminance data from a single Qp.” Reply Br. 6 (emphasis added). Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Haskell and Gillard. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 6, 12, and 22, which contain a similar limitation. We also do not sustain the §103 rejection of the corresponding dependent claims for the same reasons. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3 and 5—22. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation