Ex Parte Ji et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2017

12061567 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 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.
12/061,567 04/02/2008 Gang Ji 3382-80111-01 8717
26119 7590 05/30/2017
KLARQUIST SPARKMAN LLP
121 S.W. SALMON STREET
SUITE 1600
PORTLAND, OR 97204
EXAMINER
CLAWSON, STEPHEN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/30/2017 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):
docketing @klarquist.com
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
AS CChair @klarquist. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GANG JI, YONGJUN WU, FLORIN FOLTA,
and NAVEEN THUMPUDI
Appeal 2017-000198
Application 12/061,567
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—10, 12—19, and 21—25, which are all pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Microsoft Corporation.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-000198
Application 12/061,567
Introduction
Appellants’ Specification explains that existing methods of detecting
errors in encoded video bitstreams that recognize an error when encoded
information does not conform to the encoding scheme’s syntax can fail to
identify certain errors because, notwithstanding the error, the corrupted
video data in the bitstream may conform to syntax requirements. Spec. 5
(Background). Appellants describe a decoder “which can detect errors in,
for example, MPEG-2 coefficient blocks, even in syntactically-correct
blocks, by checking for out-of-bounds coefficients.” Spec. 6 (Summary).
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claimed subject matter (shown here with
a dispositive limitation in italics)'.
1. A method for detecting an error in a syntactically-
correct MPEG-2 bitstream in a video decoder, the method
comprising:
receiving compressed video information for a
syntactically-correct block of an MPEG-2 bitstream, the block
associated with a quantization matrix and a quantization scaler
for scaling quantized transform coefficients of the block;
computing an upper coefficient bound and a lower
coefficient bound for a block of spatial coefficients from per
transform coefficient weights based on the quantization matrix
and the quantization scaler, the per transform coefficient
weights depending on the quantization matrix and indicating
coarseness of quantization during compression of the video
information;
performing dequantization and inverse discrete cosine
transform on the block of the MPEG-2 bitstream to generate the
block of spatial coefficients;
detecting errors in the compressed video information in
the bitstream for the block by checking whether any spatial
coefficients in the block are out of bounds of a range for correct
decoding of the block, wherein the checking includes
2
Appeal 2017-000198
Application 12/061,567
comparing the spatial coefficients in the block with the upper
coefficient bound and the lower coefficient bound; and
when at least one of the spatial coefficients in the block
falls outside of the upper coefficient bound or the lower
coefficient bound, concealing the block during display.
App. Br. 25 (Claims App’x).
Rejections and References
Claims 1—4, 9, 10, 12—16, 19, and 21—23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cancemi et al. (US 2006/0088107 Al;
Apr. 27, 2006) and Li (US 6,507,614 Bl; Jan. 14, 2003). Final Act. ^U15,
21-25.
Claims 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cancemi, Li, and Matthews (US 2002/0131647 Al; Sept.
19, 2002). Final Act. 8-9, 20-21.
Claims 5—7, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cancemi, Li, and Spampinato (US 2004/0258151 Al;
Dec. 23, 2004). Final Act. 15-19, 25-27.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Cancemi, Li, and Spampinato, and The Microsoft Windows Team,
Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional Resource Kit, (2ded., publ. Jun. 13,
2003) (ISBN-10 0-7356-1974-3; ISBN-13 978-0-7356-1974-6). Final Act.
19—20 (“Windows XP Resource Kit”).
ISSUE
Based on Appellants’ arguments, a dispositive issue is whether the
Examiner errs in finding the combination of Cancemi and Li teaches or
suggests claim 1 ’s requirement for computing coefficient bounds for a block
3
Appeal 2017-000198
Application 12/061,567
of spatial coefficients from per transform coefficient weights, as recited. See
App. Br. 11-14.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Cancemi teaches “computing
an upper coefficient bound and a lower coefficient bound” (Final Act. 4—5
(citing Cancemi H 217, 220)) and Li teaches that “decoding is implemented
in the decoder by using per transform coefficient weights based on the
quantization matrix and the quantization scaler” (Final Act. 6 (citing Li
2:32—36, Figs. 1, 3B)). The Examiner then reasons it would have been
obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to combine the teachings of Cancemi
and Li to perform the recited dispositive limitation of “computing an upper
coefficient bound and a lower coefficient bound for a block of spatial
coefficients from per transform coefficient weights based on the quantization
matrix and the quantization scaler” (emphasis added). Final Act. 7.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs because “there is no teaching or
suggestion in Cancemi, Li, or elsewhere to use [] per transform coefficient
weights when computing an upper coefficient and a lower coefficient bound
for a block.” App. Br. 13 (emphasis added). The Examiner answers that
“Cancemi in view of Li disclose these limitations; Applicant seeks an
automaton contrary to the rulings of Supreme Court Justice Kennedy in KSR
v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ 2d 1385, 1397[550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)], which
state[s] Tal person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.’” Ans. 2.
We agree with the Examiner’s characterization of the ordinarily
skilled artisan from KSR. The artisan’s creativity, however, does not obviate
the Examiner’s requirement to articulate “reasoning with some rational
4
Appeal 2017-000198
Application 12/061,567
underpinning” sufficient to support the conclusion of obviousness. In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006); KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting
Kahn). The Examiner errs by not articulating such a rational underpinning
for why it would have been obvious, in view of Cancemi and Li, for
computing the coefficient bounds ‘ from the per transform coefficient
weights,” as recited.
An abstracted essence of the disputed requirement is “computing [X2]
from [Y3] based on [Z4].” Claim 22. We agree with the Examiner’s
findings that Cancemi teaches or suggests computing X and Li teaches or
suggests Y based on Z. See Final Act. 4—6. The Examiner does not,
however, articulate a rational underpinning for how or why an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have found it obvious, based on the teachings of
Cancemi and Li, to compute X from Y based on Z.
In reaching the conclusion that Cancemi and Li render obvious claim
1, the Examiner finds the motivation to combine their teachings to be:
[T]o save bandwidth (as opposed to not compressing the data)
which increases bandwidth available for other users and uses
and further to conform to known standards MPEG which saves
time and money (as opposed to creating a new standard) and
further in order to recover the encoded data (e.g. the video is
not usable until the conversion process is reversed at the
decoder).
Id. at 7.
21.e., X is “an upper coefficient bound and a lower coefficient bound for a
block of spatial coefficients.”
31.e., Y is “per transform coefficient weights based on the quantization
matrix and the quantization scaler.”
41. e., Z is “the quantization matrix and the quantization scaler.”
5
Appeal 2017-000198
Application 12/061,567
In response to Appellants’ challenge to the sufficiency of this
motivation, see App. Br. 14, the Examiner answers:
Applicant has claimed that the computation of an upper
coefficient and a lower coefficient bound for a block of spatial
coefficients which are from (or derived from) ‘per transform
coefficient weights’ that are based on a quantization matrix and
the quantization scalar. . . . [T]he spatial coefficients are
derived from a quant matrix which contains transform
coefficient weights. The upper and lower coefficient bounds
are indirectly from the per transform coefficient weights and
quant matrix because in order to decode data from the
frequency domain to the spatial domain the per transform
coefficient weights and quant matrix are used ....
Ans. 5—6.
We agree with Appellants the Examiner errs in these findings and
reasons. See Reply Br. 3. The Examiner’s finding that “[t]he upper and
lower coefficient bounds are indirectly from the per transform coefficient
weights and quant matrix because in order to decode data from the
frequency domain to the spatial domain the per transform coefficient
weights and quant matrix are used” (Ans. 6) is not a rational underpinning
for the conclusion of obviousness vis-a-vis the dispositive limitation.
Assuming arguendo the correctness of this finding, this still is not a teaching
or suggestion of computing the coefficient bounds from the per transform
coefficient weights, as recited.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellants the Examiner errs in the rejection of
claim 1.
The other independent claims (2 and 16) also include requirements for
computing a coefficient bound that are analogous to claim 1 ’s dispositive
6
Appeal 2017-000198
Application 12/061,567
requirement. See App. Br. 25, 27 (Claims App’x). Appellants argue the
Examiner errs in rejecting claims 2 and 16 on the same basis as claim 1. See
App. Br. 14—19. For the same reasons discussed supra for claim 1, we agree
with Appellants the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 2 and 16. We also
agree with Appellants that the prior art cited in rejection of the dependent
claims does not cure the error in the rejection of the independent claims. See
App. Br. 20, 22.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—
10, 12-19, and 21-25.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1—10, 12—19,
and 21—25.
REVERSED
7