Ex Parte Hannuksela et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 2018

11736454 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111736,454 04/17/2007 10949 7590 03/30/2018 Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP c/o Alston & Bird LLP Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street Suite 4000 Charlotte, NC 28280-4000 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Miska Hannuksela 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. 042933/412718 3826 EXAMINER KING,JOHNB ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2498 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2018 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): usptomail@alston.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MISKA HANNUKSELA and YE-KUI WANG Appeal2017-008065 Application 11/736,454 Technology Center 2400 Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHN A. EV ANS, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-15, 17-27, 29--41, and 43-54. App. Br. 1. 2 Claims 2, 16, 28, and 42 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Nokia Technologies Oy. App. Br. 2. 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Rejection ("Final Act.") mailed May 15, 2015, the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed July 20, 2016, the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed March 2, 2017, and the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed May 2, 2017. Appeal2017-008065 Application 11/736,454 THE INVENTION Appellants' invention relates to scalable video coding (SVC). Spec. i-f 24. The scalability of bit rate, decoding complexity, and picture size is a desirable property for heterogeneous and error-prone environments. Id. i-f 38. Scalability counters limitations on bit-rate, display resolution, network throughput, and a receiving device's computational power. Id. Appellants' SVC-coded bit stream contains an indicator for signaling whether decoded pictures are to be output or not. Id. i-f 24. To avoid not exceeding the maximum output bitrate, a processor outputs a subset of pictures according to the indicator. Id. ,-r 45. Claim 1 is reproduced below with our emphasis: 1. A method comprising: encoding, by a processor, a plurality of pictures into a scalable video coding (SVC) coded bitstream; and providing information in the scalable video coding (SVC) coded bitstream, the information associated with at least a portion of the encoded plurality of pictures and being indicative of a desired output action for at least one of the plurality of pictures, wherein the information comprises an indicator indicative of whether one of an entire picture of the plurality of encoded pictures and a portion of a corresponding picture is to be output for display or not. THE EVIDENCE The Examiner relies on the following as evidence: Zhu et al. Sull et al. Kanegae et al. Yang US 2004/0196972 Al US 2006/0064716 Al US 2006/0159427 Al US 2007/0177812 Al 2 Oct. 7, 2004 Mar. 23, 2006 July 20, 2006 Aug.2,2007 Appeal2017-008065 Application 11/736,454 THE REJECTIONS Claims 1, 14, 15, 27, 40, 41, 53, and 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhu and Kanegae. Final Act. 2-3. Claims 3---6, 17-20, 29-32, and 43--46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhu, Kanegae, and Sull. Final Act. 3--4. 3 Claims 7-13, 21-26, 33-39, and 47-52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhu, Kanegae, and Yang. Final Act. 4--5. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER ZHU AND KANEGAE The Examiner's Findings The Examiner finds that Zhu teaches every limitation recited in independent claim 1 except for the recited information comprising an indicator. Final Act. 2-3. In concluding that claim 1 would have been obvious, the Examiner cites Kanegae as teaching this feature. Id. at 3. In particular, the Examiner finds that Kanegae teaches a Sub-Frame Control Component Information (SFCCI) bit that indicates whether a frame will be displayed or not. Ans. 9. Appellants ' Contentions Appellants argue that Kanegae' s information indicates how to display a sub-video and main video but does not indicate whether to output a picture or not. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 3. According to Appellants, Kanegae displays both the main video and sub-video overlaid on the display. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 3. 3 The Examiner includes claims 16, 28 and 42 in this rejection. Final Act. 3. Claims 16, 28 and 42, however, have been cancelled. See App. Br. 22, 24. 3 Appeal2017-008065 Application 11/736,454 Issue UnderÂ§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 by finding that Kanegae would have taught or suggested the recited indicator? Analysis Claim 1 recites, in part, "an indicator indicative of whether one of an entire picture of the plurality of encoded pictures and a portion of a corresponding picture is to be output for display or not" (emphasis added). According to the Specification, conventional supplemental enhancement information (SEI) messages instruct the decoding device's display process. Spec. i-f 19. But these SEI messages do not affect the output of the decoder itself. Id. Appellants' decoder, however, uses a signal element to determine whether a picture is output for display. Id. i-f 44. In one embodiment, a processing unit receives a bit stream including the signal element as input and outputs a subset of the bit stream containing only the pictures that are indicated to be output. Id. i-f 45. Although the claim is not limited to this embodiment, this disclosure, nevertheless, informs our understanding of the claim. Here, claim 1 recites indicating whether one of an entire picture and a portion "is to be output for display or not." We emphasize "output for display" here because the Examiner has not shown how Kanegae' s SF CCI indicates whether a frame will be output for display, as Appellants argue (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 3). Rather, the cited passages only discuss how to display pictures that have already been output. See Kanegae i-fi-120, 257, 262. According to the Examiner, Kanegae teaches that the SFCCI bit determines whether a frame will be displayed or not. Ans. 9 (citing 4 Appeal2017-008065 Application 11/736,454 Kanegae i-fi-1257, 262). But the cited portion of Kanegae states, "if a value '1 ' is assigned to each article, it means that the sub-frame can be displayed in the display mode indicated by this article ... if a value 'O' is assigned to each article, it means that the sub-frame cannot be displayed in the display mode indicated by this article." Kanegae i1257 (emphasis added). The Examiner's reading ignores the phrase "in the display mode." See Ans. 9. For example, Kanegae describes that the display mode's control information relates to two-dimensional conversion, alpha blending, button display, shadow dropping, among other processing. Kanegae i1262, Fig. 24, item 816 (SFCCI bit allocation). The Examiner has not shown that any of this control information indicates whether to output a frame or not. See Ans. 9. Rather, Kanegae's control information indicates how to display the frame. Kanegae i-fi-1257, 262; accord App. Br. 12. Furthermore, the Examiner explains that Kanegae' s control information can include shading-display control information. Ans. 8 (citing Kanegae i120). According to the Examiner, this control information is used to shade an opaque part out of a sub-video, which obscures a part of the main video. Ans. 8. As Appellants point out, this passage shows that both the sub-video and main video have been output and displayed according to the control information. See Kanegae i120. In other words, Kanegae's control information tells the system how to shade the output, not whether to output. Id. On this record, we agree with Appellants (App Br. 12) that the Examiner has not shown that Kanegae teaches the recited indicator. Because this argument is dispositive, we need not consider Appellants' remaining arguments. See id. at 7-16; Reply Br. 2--4. 5 Appeal2017-008065 Application 11/736,454 Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and independent claims 14, 15, 27, 40, 41, 53, and 54, which also recite limitations similar to claim 1 'sand are rejected similarly (See Final Act. 2- 3). THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS We do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 3- 13, 17-26, 29-39, and 43-52 for the same reasons discussed above in connection with the respective independent claims. The additional references were not relied upon to teach the limitation missing from Kanegae, and, thus, do not cure the deficiency discussed above. See Final Act. 3-5. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-15, 17-27, 29--41, and 43-54. REVERSED 6