Ex Parte Demos

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2017

13272316 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2017)

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