Ex Parte MacInnis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2017

12251988 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 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.
12/251,988 10/15/2008 Alexander G. Maclnnis 106861-0267 6568
7590
Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation
3000 K Street N.W
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20007-5109
EXAMINER
VO, TUNG T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2017 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):
ipdocketing @ foley. com
cmckenna@foley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDER G. MACINNIS and VIVIAN HSIUN
Appeal 2016-001019
Application 12/251,98s1
Technology Center 2400
Before LARRY J. HUME, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—6, 8—17, and 19-40. Claims 7 and
18 were canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-
in-part.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to digital video, including
transcoding an entropy-coded bitstream. Spec. 14. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Broadcom
Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-001019
Application 12/251,988
1. A system for entropy code preprocessing comprising:
a decoder configured to decode each encoded syntax
element included in a portion of a bitstream into a
corresponding syntax element value, wherein the bitstream is
encoded with a first variable length coding and is associated
with picture data; and
an encoder configured to obtain each syntax element
value from the decoder and encode each obtained syntax
element value with a second, different variable length coding
into a second bitstream encoded with the second variable length
coding, the second bitstream subsequently transferred to a
decompression engine configured to apply motion
compensation and decode the picture data.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL2
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1—6, 8—17, and 19-36 for non-
statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1—18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,469,012. Appellants do not provide
arguments for this rejection, and thus, we summarily affirm this rejection.
Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 1—6, 11—17, 22, 28—33, and 36—
40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wilkinson (US
6,160,844; issued Dec. 12, 2000).
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 1—6, 11—17, 22—25, 28—33, and
36-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Kitamura et al. (US
6,556,627 B2; issued Apr. 29, 2003) (hereinafter “Kitamura”).
2 We provide the rejections from the December 3, 2014 Final Action, from
which this appeal is taken, as they are listed there, rather than the list of the
rejections provided by Appellants. App. Br. 6—8.
2
Appeal 2016-001019
Application 12/251,988
(4) The Examiner rejected claims 1—6, 11—17, 22—25, 28—33, and
36-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Dolson et al. (US
7,804,899 Bl; issued Sept. 28, 2010) (hereinafter “Dolson”).
(5) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 12, 23, and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Sostawa et al. (US 7,106,799 Bl; issued
Sept. 12, 2006) (hereinafter “Sostawa”).
(6) The Examiner rejected claims 8, 9, 19, 20, and 263 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Wilkinson
and Sun (US 2003/0202705 Al; published Oct. 30, 2003).
(7) The Examiner rejected claims 10, 21, 27, and 35 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Wilkinson
and Kajiwara et al. (US 6,847,735 B2; issued Jan. 25, 2005) (hereinafter
“Kajiwara”).
(8) The Examiner rejected claims 8, 9, 19, 20, and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kitamura
and Wang et al. (US 7,162,094 B2; issued Jan. 9, 2007) (hereinafter
“Wang”).
(9) The Examiner rejected claims 10, 21, 27, and 35 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kitamura
and Kajiwara.
(10) The Examiner rejected claims 23—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Wilkinson and Kim (US
7,054,370 B2; issued May 30, 2006).
3 Claim 34 comprises a limitation substantially similar to claims 8 and
claims 19, and thus, we understand claim 34 was inadvertently left out of the
recital for this rejection, as well as the rejection based on Kitamura and
Wang.
3
Appeal 2016-001019
Application 12/251,988
(11) The Examiner rejected claims 23—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Kitamura and Shen (US
6,633,673 Bl; issued Oct. 14, 2003).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider all
evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We below
address specific findings and arguments.
(1) Wilkinson
Appellants argue Wilkinson fails to disclose “encod[ing] each
obtained syntax element value with a second, different variable length
coding into a second bitstream encoded with the second variable length
coding,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 12, and 28.
App. Br. 8—9; Reply Br. 3^4.
Appellants argue Wilkinson instead discloses re-encoding a MPEG
stream comprising a stream of intra-frames (“I-frames”) into a MPEG
stream comprising alternating I-frames and bi-directionally interpolated
frames (“B-frames”). App. Br. 9 (citing Wilkinson Fig. 10). Appellants
argue these streams, however, both remain “encoded in the same MPEG-2
variable length coding.” Id. (citing Wilkinson col. 9,11. 54—56). Appellants
contend Wilkinson, thus, fails to disclose encoding the second bitstream
with a second, different variable length coding, as required by the claims.
Id.
The Examiner finds Wilkinson discloses the disputed limitation. Ans.
50—53. Specifically, the Examiner finds Wilkinson discloses (i) decoding a
4
Appeal 2016-001019
Application 12/251,988
syntax element value from a MPEG stream of I-frames (i.e., a first variable
length coding) and (ii) encoding the obtained syntax element value with a
second, different variable length coding (i.e., a MPEG stream having
alternating I-frames and B-frames). See Ans. 52 (citing Wilkinson Fig. 10
(showing Group of Pictures (“GOP”) A comprises I-frames and GOPB
comprises alternating I-frames and B-frames), Fig. 11; col. 10,1. 61 to col.
11.1. 4). The Examiner finds Wilkinson discloses “the GOPA and GOPB
are different from each other so that the variable length coding in GOPA is
different from the variable length coding in GOPB[].” Ans. 52.
We disagree with the Examiner’s finding that the cited portions of
Wilkinson disclose encoding a second bitstream with a second, different
variable length coding, as required by the claims. Rather, Wilkinson’s
Figures 10 and 11 disclose decoding and encoding two different MPEG
streams (i.e., GOPA comprising I-frames and GOPB comprising I-frames
and B-frames) having different GOP size (e.g., the GOPA’s length between
I-frames is one and GOPB’s length between I-frames is two). See Wilkinson
Figs. 10-11, col. 10,1. 61 to col. 11,1. 4. The Examiner, however, has not
shown Wilkinson discloses that these two MPEG streams comprise
bitstreams encoded by different variable length coding. See Wilkinson col.
2.1. 65 to col. 3,1. 31.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of
claims 1—6, 11—17, 22, 28—33, and 36-40, as each of these claims contains
the disputed limitation. Furthermore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
§103 rejections of (i) claims 8, 9, 19, 20, and 26, which combines
Wilkinson with Sun; (ii) claims 10, 21, 27, and 35, which combines
Wilkinson with Kajiwara; and (iii) claims 23—25, which combines
5
Appeal 2016-001019
Application 12/251,988
Wilkinson with Kim, as the Examiner does not show that any of these
additional references teach or suggest the disputed limitation. See Final Act.
35-36, 38-39; Ans. 56-58.
(2) Kitamura
Appellants argue Kitamura fails to disclose “encod[ing] each obtained
syntax element value with a second, different variable length coding,” as
recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 12, 23, and 28. App. Br.
10—11; Reply Br. 4—5. Appellants argue Kitamura instead discloses
encoding “modulated baseband video, rather than syntax elements from the
decoder.” App. Br. 11 (citing Kitamura Figs. 4, 12—13; col. 2,11. 50-65)
(arguing Kitamura discloses “data may be repeatedly decoded from an
MPEG format to base-band video and re-encoded to the same MPEG format
after processing.”).
The Examiner finds Kitamura discloses the disputed limitation. Ans.
53—54. Specifically, the Examiner finds Kitamura discloses an encoder
obtaining a syntax element value from a decoder, and encoding the obtained
syntax element value with a second, different variable length coding. Ans.
54 (citing Kitamura Figs. 4, 5 (teaching the decoder), 12 (teaching the
encoder), 13 (finding encoder 52-1 obtains “the output of the variable length
encoding circuit 118 of fig. 12” from decoder 51-1).
We disagree with the Examiner’s finding that the cited portions of
Kitamura disclose encoding each obtained syntax element value. Rather,
Kitamura’s Figures 4, 15, and 13 each disclose that the syntax elements are
decoded to baseband video signals prior to being re-encoded. See
Kitamura’s Figures 4, 15, and 13.
6
Appeal 2016-001019
Application 12/251,988
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of
claims 1—6, 11—17, 22—25, 28—33, and 36-40, as each of these claims
contains the disputed limitation. Furthermore, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s § 103 rejections of (i) claims 8, 9, 19, 20, and 26, which
combines Kitamura with Wang; (ii) claims 10, 21, 27, and 35, which
combines Kitamura with Kajiwara; and (iii) claims 23—25, which combines
Kitamura with Shen, as the Examiner does not show that any of these
additional references teach or suggest the disputed limitation. See Final Act.
37-38, 40; Ans. 58.
(3) Poison
Appellants argue Dolson fails to disclose “encod[ing] each obtained
syntax element value with a second, different variable length coding,” as
recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 12, 23, and 28. App. Br.
12; Reply Br. 5. Appellants argue Dolson instead discloses transcoding a
stream by “‘reducing] the bitrate of an MPEG-2 stream by transmitting only
the visible area of the movie,”’ without changing the output stream into a
different coding format. App. Br. 12 (citing Dolson Abstract). More
particularly, Appellants argue “[cjropping a video and encoding it in the
same format is not the same as encoding the video in a different variable
length coding format.” Id.', Reply Br. 5 (arguing Dolson teaches “that the
input and output streams are in the same MPEG-2 variable length coding”).
The Examiner finds Dolson discloses the disputed limitation.
Ans. 55. Specifically, the Examiner finds Dolson discloses an encoder
“configured to form a bitstream encoded with a second variable length
coding by encoding the series of decoded syntax element values obtained
7
Appeal 2016-001019
Application 12/251,988
from the decoder in an unaltered state.” Id. (citing Dolson Figs. 1, 5a, 5b);
Final Act. 23—24.
We disagree with the Examiner’s finding that the cited portions of
Dolson disclose encoding a second bitstream with a second, different
variable length coding, as required by the claims. Rather, Dolson’s Figures
1, 5a, and 5b disclose decoding and encoding without disclosing that
different variable length coding schemes are employed. See Dolson Figs. 1,
5a, 5b. Further, the Examiner has not shown Dolson’s disclosure regarding
motion compensation is relevant to the disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of
claims 1—6, 11—17, 22—25, 28—33, and 36-40, as each of these claims
contains the disputed limitation.
(4) Sostawa
Appellants argue Sostawa fails to disclose “encod[ing] each obtained
syntax element value with a second, different variable length coding,” as
recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 12, 23, and 28. App. Br.
13—14; Reply Br. 6. Appellants argue Sostawa instead discloses
“transcod[ing] video to a constant bit rate coding: ‘The bit-rate control
converts, as necessary, an input bit stream with a variable bit rate (VBR) bit
stream into a transcoded bit stream with a constant bit rate (CBR) bit
stream.’” App. Br. 13 (quoting Sostawa col. 5,11. 50-53). Appellants
contend “Sostawa merely re-encodes the modified bitstream with the same
MPEG 2 coding system.” Reply Br. 6 (citing Sostawa Fig. 2). Furthermore,
Appellants argue “Sostawa’s MPEG-2 Decoder (10) does not receive any
bitstream from the MPEG-2 Coder, much less a bitstream encoded with a
8
Appeal 2016-001019
Application 12/251,988
second different variable length coding,” as the Examiner finds. App. Br. 14
(citing Sostawa Fig. 2).
The Examiner finds Sostawa discloses the disputed limitation. Ans.
56. Specifically, the Examiner finds Sostawa discloses “an output bitstream
encoder (e.g.[,] 22 of figs. 3 and 4) configured to obtain the corresponding
decoded syntax elements directly from the input bitstream decoder and to
encode the . . . [elements] to form a portion of the bitstream encoded with
the second entropy coding (R2 of fig. 3).” Ans. 56 (citing Sostawa Figs. 3—
4).
We disagree with the Examiner’s finding that the cited portions of
Sostawa disclose encoding a second bitstream with a second, different
variable length coding, as required by the claims. Rather, Sostawa’s Figures
3 and 4 disclose decoding and encoding without disclosing whether different
variable length coding schemes are employed. See Sostawa Figs. 3^4.
Further, the Examiner has not shown Sostawa’s disclosure regarding motion
compensation is relevant to the disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of
claims 1, 12, 23, and 28, as each of these claims contains the disputed
limitation.
9
Appeal 2016-001019
Application 12/251,988
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—6, 8—17, and 19—36
for non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting.
We reverse the Examiner’s § 102 and § 103 rejections of claims 1—6,
8-17, and 19-40.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10