Ex Parte Gomila et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 8, 2016

12087020 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/087,020 06/24/2008 24498 7590 03/10/2016 Robert D, Shedd, Patent Operations THOMSON Licensing LLC 4 Research Way 3rd Floor Princeton, NJ 08543 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Cristina Gomila 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. PU060007 5646 EXAMINER SUN, YULIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2485 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/10/2016 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): uspto@technicolor.com pat. verlangieri@technicolor.com russell. smith@technicolor.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CRISTINA GOMILA, YEPING SU, and PENG YIN Appeal2014-005359 1 Application 12/087,020 Technology Center 2400 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--11, 13-20, 22-29, 31-36, and 38, which are all the claims pending in this appeal. App. Br. 7. Claims 3, 12, 21, 30, and 37 have been canceled. Id. 39--47. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as THOMSON LICENSING. App. Br. 3. Appeal2014-005359 Application 12/087,020 Appellants' Invention Appellants' invention is directed to a video encoder/decoder having a deblocking filter for adaptively filtering multi-view video sequences including temporal and cross-view prediction information to which a suitable boundary strength is applied. Spec. 10:22-32, Fig. 2. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows: A video encoder, comprising: a deblocking filter adaptable responsive to prediction information for encoding multi-view video sequences, wherein the prediction information to which the deblocking filter is adaptively responsive comprises at least prediction type information comprising temporal prediction information and cross-view prediction information. SUN et al. STEIN et al. WU et al. HA Prior Art Relied Upon US 2004/0190626 Al US 2006/0174236 Al US 2006/0262856 Al US 2007 /0064800 Al Rejections on Appeal Sept. 30, 2004 Aug. 03, 2006 Nov. 23, 2006 Mar. 22, 2007 Appellants request review of the following Examiner's rejections: Claims 6, 15, 24, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112 (2) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention. 2 Appeal2014-005359 Application 12/087,020 Claims 1, 2, 9-11, 18-20, 27-29, 36, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Wu. Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, 23, 25, 26, 31, 32, 34, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Wu and Sun. Claims 6, 15, 24, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Wu, Sun, and Stein. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 13, 14, 16-20, 22, 23, 25-29, 31, 32, 34--36, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ha and Sun. Claims 6, 15, 24, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ha, Sun, and Stein. ANALYSIS We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 8-37, and the Reply Brief, pages 7-33.2 We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments. We are unpersuaded by Appellants' contentions. Except as indicated otherwise, 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Sept. 22, 2013), the Reply Brief (filed Mar. 31, 2014), and the Answer (mailed Jan. 31, 2014) for their respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 3 7 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). 3 Appeal2014-005359 Application 12/087,020 we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. See Ans. 2-23, Non-Fin. Act. 2-17. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Indefiniteness Rejection Appellants argue the limitation "wherein the boundary strength is set to 4 when the prediction information of two neighboring blocks, with respect to the given block to be filtered by said deblocking filter, is different," as recited in claims 6, 15, 24, and 33, is not indefinite. App. Br. 10-11, Reply Br. 7-10. According to Appellants, the cited claim language clearly requires that only the given block to be filtered uses a boundary strength of 4 if the prediction information in the neighboring blocks with respect to the given block is different. App. Br. l 0. That is, the two edges of the given block neighboring the two other blocks will be set to a boundary strength of 4. Reply Br. 8. This argument is not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that the recited claim language is not definite, as argued by Appellants. Ans. 13. Although the claim does require setting the boundary strength to 4 when the prediction information is different for neighboring blocks with respect to a given block to be filtered, the Examiner correctly concludes it is unclear as to which boundary strength the claim is referring. Id. at 13-14. We agree with Appellants that the given block to be filtered includes two edges, which can be arranged such that one edge borders a first neighboring block, and the other edge borders the other 4 Appeal2014-005359 Application 12/087,020 neighboring block. Reply Br. 8. In this case, although not specifically required by the claim, both filtered edges of the given block are likely to be assigned the boundary strength of 4. Alternatively, the given block can also be arranged such that only one of its edges borders the two neighboring blocks, which may be arranged contiguously (i.e., the term "two neighboring blocks" refers to two blocks that share a common border with each other rather than two blocks that each share a common border with the given block). In this case, however, only one of the edges of the given block bordering the two contiguous blocks will be assigned the boundary strength of 4. Therefore, it is unclear whether both edges or only one edge of the given block being filtered is assigned a boundary strength of 4. Because the recited claim limitation is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the Examiner is justified in requiring Appellants to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph, as indefinite." Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BP AI 2008) ("Precedential"). 3 We therefore affirm the Examiner's indefiniteness rejection of claims 6, 15, 24, and 33. 3 Appellants should consider heeding the Examiner's recommendation to further clarify the disputed claim language by indicating that the boundary strength associated with the edges of the given block bordering the two neighboring blocks is set to 4. Ans. 14. 5 Appeal2014-005359 Application 12/087,020 Anticipation Rejection Appellants argue Wu does not describe a deblocking filter adaptively responsive to temporal prediction information and cross-view prediction information, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 15-18, Reply Br. 13-17. In particular, Appellants argue Wu's disclosure of two separate and distinct filters, each dedicated to a specific type of information, does not describe a single deblocking filter responsive to both temporal and cross-view prediction information. App. Br. 16. According to Appellants, the motion compensated temporal filter and the disparity compensated view filter disclosed by Wu do not perform deblocking, and their complexities, circuit arrangement, and operation are different from the claimed deblocking filter. Reply Br. 16; App. Br. 16. These arguments are not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that because Appellants' Specification does not provide any details regarding the complexity, circuit arrangement, and operation of the de blocking filter, nor does the claim limit the deblocking filter to a single element that performs both functions concurrently, the claim does not preclude the cited deblocking filter from being construed as a combination of two distinct de blocking filters performing the recited functions. Ans. 15-16. Consequently, we concur with the Examiner's finding that Wu's disclosure of the two filter structure having a first section (MCTF) for filtering temporal prediction information and a second section (DCVF) for filtering view prediction information discloses the de blocking filter. Id. (citing Wu i-f 22, Fig. 2). It follows 6 Appeal2014-005359 Application 12/087,020 Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 1. Regarding the rejection of claims 2, 9-11, 18-20, 27-29, 36, and 38, because Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2, 9-11, 18-20, 27-29, 36, and 38 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). Obviousness Rejections Appellants argue the combination of Ha and Sun does not teach or suggest a deblocking filter adaptively responsive to temporal prediction information and cross-view prediction information, as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 23-25, Reply Br. 18-23. In particular, Appellants argue although Ha discloses a deblocking filter as being included in the H.264 standard, it is discussed only within the context of a single view video coding, as opposed to the multi-view video coding recited in the claim. App. Br. 24, Reply Br. 20 (citing Ha i-f 20). Further, Appellants argue even though Ha discloses a multi-view video encoding/decoding scheme, neither scheme includes a de blocking filter. App. Br. 24 (citing Ha. Fig. 1 ). Likewise, Appellants argue although Sun discloses "an adaptive filtering based upon boundary strength", Sun discloses employing a single view video coding, as opposed to a multi-view video coding. Id. at 24, Reply Br. 7 Appeal2014-005359 Application 12/087,020 21. These arguments are not persuasive because they are tantamount to an individual attack against the cited references. One cannot show non- obviousness by attacking the references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981 ). We agree with the Examiner Ha's disclosure of encoding/decoding multi-view video sequences including various types of prediction information is known in the art to utilize a deblocking filter that complies with the H.264 standard. Ans. 18 (citing Ha i-f 20). We further agree with the Examiner that Sun's disclosure of using a de blocking filter for "adaptive filtering based upon boundary strength" complements Ha's teaching to predictably result in a deblocking filter for adaptively filtering multi-view video sequences based upon boundary strength. Id. at 18-19 (citing Sun, Abstract). Further, the Examiner finds that the motion disparity vector disclosed in Ha teaches the cross-view prediction information and the temporal prediction information. Ans. 19 (citing Ha i-fi-122, 40-44, 66, 67). However, although Appellants correctly argue that Figure 2 of Ha does not include an element 212, Appellants have not rebutted the Examiner's finding that the motion/disparity vector teaches the cross-view prediction information and the temporal prediction information. Reply Br. 21. Therefore, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's finding that the combination of Ha and Sun teaches the disputed limitations. It follows Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. 8 Appeal2014-005359 Application 12/087,020 Regarding the rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 13, 14, 16-20, 22, 23, 25-29, 31, 32, 34--36, and 38, because Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 13, 14, 16-20, 22, 23, 25-29, 31, 32, 34--36, and 38 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). Regarding the rejections of claims 6, 15, 24, and 33, Appellants argue that neither the combination of Wu, Sun, and Stein nor the combination of Ha, Sun, and Stein teaches setting a boundary strength to 4 when the prediction information of two neighboring blocks, with respect to a given block, is different. App. Br. 26-30. This argument is not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner Stein's disclosure of setting a boundary strength to 4 would complement Sun's teaching of a deblocking filter for adaptively filtering scheme to thereby allow users of the Wu/Sun/Stein combination or the Ha/Sun/Stein combination to adaptively filter prediction information of different types. Ans. 22-23 (citing Stein, Figs. 4--6). It follows Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's rejections of claims 6, 15, 24, and 33. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4--11, 13-20, 22- 29, 31-36, and 38 as set forth above. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 9