Ex Parte Demos

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2018

13325695 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/325,695 12/14/2011
143308 7590 09/25/2018
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (Dolby)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gary A. Demos
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.
07314-0013008 3439
EXAMINER
LEE, YYOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2018 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):
P ATDOCTC@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. DEMOS
Appeal2017-000065
Application 13/325,695
Technology Center 2400
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-21, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Claims 1-21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Haskell et al. (US 2006/0002467 Al; Jan. 5, 2006) and Gillard
(GB 2266635A; Nov. 3, 1993). Final Act. 2-5.
We reverse.
Appeal2017-000065
Application 13/325,695
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to "improving compressed image
chroma information in MPEG-like video compression systems." ,r 2. Claim
1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method for a decoder, the method comprising:
receiving, at the decoder, at least a luminance QP
( quantization parameter) value and a first chroma QP bias
value, wherein the decoder comprises a luminance channel, a U
chroma channel and a V chroma channel;
utilizing, with the decoder, the luminance QP value and
the first chroma QP bias value to determine a first chroma QP
value for the U chroma channel by adding the first chroma QP
bias value to the luminance QP value; and
decompressing an image region of a video image using
the luminance QP value and the first chroma QP value.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential).
ANALYSIS
Contentions
The Examiner finds Haskell and Gillard teach all limitations of claim
1. Final Act. 2-5; see also Ans. 3-5. The Examiner finds "Haskell discloses
[] in Figure 3 where a single QP value and a single bias value is used for
both luminance and chrominance channels." Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner
finds
2
Appeal2017-000065
Application 13/325,695
Gillard merely provides the motivation that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made, having both references of Haskell and
Gillard before him/her, to modify the QP update method of
Haskell to be upgraded as a separate chrominance channel
updating apparatus by simply utilizing a separate chrominance
bias signal to update the original single QP value to include the
same quantization step updating means and competitive
processing equipment as specified in claims 1-21. With an
upgraded quantizer update system, one of ordinary skill in the
art would have had no difficulty in applying subsequent
quantization processing such as luminance channel
quantization, first chroma channel quantization, and second
chroma quantization in quantizer/ dequantizer 140/240 by the
controller, as illustrated in Figure 1 of Haskell, since QP update
is a necessary and well known technique for any encoding
system.
Final Act. 3; see also Gillard Fig. 12 (separate luminance and chrominance
decompression). The Examiner finds
Fig. 11 of Gillard illustrates that a new QP is calculated from
adding the previous QP and a bias QP (i.e. L'iQ). Therefore, one
of ordinary skill in the art would have had no difficulty in
recognizing that if the previous QP has the same value for both
the luminance and the chrominance channels, as disclosed by
Haskell, it will meet the definition of "a luminance QP"; and
any new chrominance QP would inherently be calculated by
adding this "luminance QP" and the chrominance bias QP.
Final Act. 4--5.
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
1. Haskell and Gillard do not teach receiving a luminance QP
value and a first chroma QP bias value at a decoder. See App. Br. 6-11; see
also Reply Br. 1-7.
Gillard discloses rece1vmg separate quantization scaling
factor Os for the luminance and chrominance decompression
channels, and not "a first chroma QP bias value," where "a first
3
Appeal2017-000065
Application 13/325,695
chroma QP value for the U chroma channel" is determined "by
adding the first chroma QP bias value to the luminance QP
value," as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 8; see also Gillard Fig. 12 (separate luminance and chrominance
decompression). "Rather than disclosing a quantization parameter change
between the luminance channel and the chrominance channel for the same
block, Gillard instead discloses determining a change in Qs between
different blocks of input data for each of the luminance channel and the
chrominance channel." App. Br. 10. "In other words, the determination of
the change in the luminance channel Qs is separate from determination of
the change in the chrominance channel Qs." App. Br. 10.
11. "Haskell and Gillard cannot be combined because the
combination would require Haskell to be modified to receive separate
quantization parameters for each of the luminance [ and] the chrominance
channels, which changes Haskell's principle of operation of receiving a
single quantization parameter." App. Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 7-8.
Our Review
On May 1, 2015, a different panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board (PT AB) decided a prior appeal in this case. In the prior decision, the
Board reversed the Examiner's rejection based on Haskell and Naimpally
(US 5,294,974; Mar. 15, 1994) of then-pending claims 1-21. See Dec. 1--4.
In the prior decision, the Board found that Haskell, in Figure 3,
discloses receiving a single quantization parameter (Qp), but does not
disclose or suggest receiving a separate first chroma QP bias value. See Dec.
3. We adopt this finding as our own. Thus, Haskell does not "determine a
first chroma QP value for the U chroma channel by adding the first chroma
4
Appeal2017-000065
Application 13/325,695
QP bias value to the luminance QP value," as recited in claim 1 because
Haskell does not receive a first chroma QP bias value.
Further regarding the "first chroma QP bias value" recited in claim 1,
we agree with Appellant's argument (i) that Haskell and Gillard do not teach
a "first chroma QP bias value."
Turning to Gillard, in Figure 12, we agree with Appellant that Gillard
discloses receiving separate quantization scaling factors Qs for luminance
and chrominance. See Gillard Figure 12. To the extent there is a
chrominance bias value L'iQ (Gillard Figure 11 ), this bias value is added to
the old chrominance scaling factor Qs (old) to determine a new chrominance
scaling factor Qs (new)· That is, Gillard does not "determine a first chroma QP
value for the U chroma channel by adding the first chroma QP bias value to
the luminance QP value."
Further, we agree with Appellant's argument (ii) that modifying
Haskell in the manner proposed by the Examiner would change Haskell's
principal of operation of receiving a single quantization parameter.
Finally, even if we assume that Gillard's teachings may be combined
into Haskell's system, such a combination would, at best, modify Haskell to
receive separate quantization parameters Qp for luminance and chrominance.
In accordance with the teachings of Gillard, adjustments to luminance and
chrominance would have been made independently, just like Gillard
discloses in Figure 11, and the combination still would not teach
"determin[ing] a first chroma QP value for the U chroma channel by adding
the first chroma QP bias value to the luminance QP value."
5
Appeal2017-000065
Application 13/325,695
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We
also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-12, which depend
from claim 1.
Independent claims 13, 14, and 21 recite the same argued limitation
discussed above with respect to claim 1. We, therefore, do not sustain the
Examiner's rejections of claims 13, 14, and 21. We also do not sustain the
Examiner's rejections of claims 15-20, which depend from claim 19.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-21 is reversed.
REVERSED
6