Ex Parte Pettersson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 2018

13521172 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/521, 172 07/09/2012 146825 7590 03/29/2018 Sage Patent Group!felefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson PO BOX 30789 RALEIGH, NC 27622-0789 Martin Pettersson 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. 9900-30639US2 4139 EXAMINER ZHOU, ZHIHAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2482 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2018 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): instructions@sagepat.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARTIN PETTERSSON and ANDREAS ROSSHOLM Appeal2017-003122 Application 13/521,172 1 Technology Center 2400 Before HUNG H. BUI, JOHN F. HORVATH, and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Office Action rejecting claims 29--38, 40-42, and 44--57, all of which are pending on appeal. Claims 1-28, 39, and 43 are cancelled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 2 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Telefonakteibolaget LM Ericsson. App. Br. 1. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed June 28, 2016 ("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed December 12, 2016 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed October 24, 2016 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed March 29, 2016 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed June 9, 2012 ("Spec."). Appeal2017-003122 Application 13/521,172 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to a video quality estimation technique performed on a bitstream basis. Spec. 1; Abstract. Such a video quality estimation method includes identifying an error and its position in a picture frame from a video bitstream of picture frames, determining an error propagation taking into account temporal or spatial propagation of the error, and estimating the quality of the video bitstream based on the determined error propagation. Spec. 2-3. According to Appellants, "[t]he error may occur due to a delay or loss of information (e.g., due to a delay or loss of a packet, a picture frame, a picture frame partition, etc.)." Spec. 3. Claims 29 and 45 are independent. Claim 29 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, as reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics: 29. A video quality estimation method, comprising: receiving a video bitstream comprising a series of picture frames; determining that an error has occurred in one of the picture frames of the video bitstream; determining an error propagation of the error by keeping track of at least one of a temporal propagation and a spatial propagation of the error by using intra prediction in response to determining that the error has occurred; and determining a visual degradation caused by the error, by determining a penalty value indicative of the visual degradation caused by the error. App. Br. 9 (Claims App'x). 2 Appeal2017-003122 Application 13/521,172 Evidence Considered Edwards et al. US 6,363,116 Bl Mar. 26, 2002 Bao et al. US 2007/0160133 Al July 12, 2007 Guo et al. US 2007/0160137 Al July 12, 2007 Yang et al. US 2007 /0237227 Al Oct. 11, 2007 Kim et al. ("Kim II") US 2009/0141166 Al June 4, 2009 Kim et al. US 2009/0153668 Al June 18, 2009 Knicker et al. US 2010/0067574 Al Mar. 18, 2010 Fulvio Babich, Marco D'Orlando, & Francesca Vatta, Video Quality Estimation in Wireless IP Networks: Algorithms and Applications, 4: 1 ACM TRANSACTIONS ON MULTIMEDIA COMPUTING, COMMUNICATIONS AND APPLICATIONS (2008) ("Babich"). Examiner's Rejections (1) Claims 29, 30, 32, 42, 44--46, 48, and 52-54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Babich and Bao. Final Act. 2-5. (2) Claims 33, 34, 38, 41, 49, and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Babich, Bao, and Yang. Final Act. 5-9. (3) Claims 31, 47, and 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Babich, Bao, and Kim. Final Act. 9-10. (4) Claims 35-37 and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Babich, Bao, and Guo. Final Act. 10-11. (5) Claim 56 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Babich, Bao, and Kim II. Final Act. 11-12. (6) Claim 57 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Babich, Bao, and Edwards. Final Act. 12. 3 Appeal2017-003122 Application 13/521,172 (7) Claim 40 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Babich, Bao, and Yang. Final Act. 13-14. (8) Claim 40 stands further rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Babich, Bao, Yang, and Edwards. Final Act. 14-- 16. ANALYSIS Independent Claims 29 and 45 In support of the obviousness rejection of independent claim 45 (and similarly, claim 29), the Examiner finds Babich teaches a device for estimating video quality including a receiver configured to receive a video bitstream and a processor configured to: (1) "determine that an error has occurred in one of the picture frames of the video bitstream"; (2) "determine an error propagation ... of the error" by taking into account a "spatio- temporal error propagation" using predictive coding scheme; and (3) "determine a visual degradation caused by the error, ... by determining a penalty value indicative of the visual degradation caused by the error." Final Act. 2-3 (citing Babich 3:3-3:6). While Babich's "spatio-temporal error propagation" implies at least one of a temporal propagation and a spatial propagation of the error using predictive coding scheme, the Examiner nevertheless relies on Bao for expressly teaching an error propagation determination requires "keeping track of at least one of a temporal propagation and a spatial propagation of the error by using intra prediction in response to determining that the error has occurred" to support the conclusion of obviousness. Final Act. 3 (citing Bao iii! 58, 77, 82, 86, 90-91, 96, 107). 4 Appeal2017-003122 Application 13/521,172 Appellants dispute the Examiner's findings regarding Bao, but not Babich. In particular, Appellants acknowledge Bao teaches: (1) "'schemes to curb error propagation' and a special mode 'to prevent spatial error propagation [using intra prediction]"' and (2) "spatial error propagation and intra prediction." App. Br. 5---6 (citing Bao i-fi-190, 107). However, Appellants characterize Bao's schemes as "preemptive/preventative schemes" and, as such, argue Bao's "preemptive/preventative schemes ... do not (a) determine an error propagation in response to (b) determining that an error has occurred" as recited in claim 29. App. Br. 5 (citing Bao i-fi-1 90, 107); Reply Br. 4--5. Appellants also argue Bao's "preemptive/preventative schemes ... do not disclose or suggest 'determining an error propagation of the error by keeping track of at least one of a temporal propagation and a spatial propagation of the error by using intra prediction in response to determining that the error has occurred,"' as recited in claim 29. App. Br. 5---6 (citing Bao i-fi-190, 107); Reply Br. 5. Lastly, Appellants argue Bao's reference to "drifting errors ... propagated to neighboring blocks, resulting in potentially severe error propagation" relates to "hypothetical errors [that] can propagate (potentially severely)" and "does not disclose or suggest determining an error propagation of a particular error that has occurred 'by keeping track of at least one of a temporal propagation and a spatial propagation of the error by using intra prediction in response to determining that the error has occurred,"' as recited in claim 29. App. Br. 6-7. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Instead, we find the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants' 5 Appeal2017-003122 Application 13/521,172 arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 17-20. As such, we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein. Ans. 17-20. For additional emphasis, we note Appellants' characterization that Bao teaches "preemptive/preventative" schemes is incorrect. Instead, Bao teaches "video coding techniques ... to reduce spatial error propagation [using intra prediction]." See Bao i-fi-16, 58, 77, 82, 86, 90-91, 107. Bao's video decoder 26, shown in Figures 1 and 3, is used to determine errors in the reconstructed frame (or block) and reduce spatial error propagation. Bao i182. As such, we agree with the Examiner's findings that Bao teaches or suggests the disputed limitation: "determining an error propagation of the error by keeping track of at least one of a temporal propagation and a spatial propagation of the error by using intra prediction in response to determining that the error has occurred" as recited in claims 29 and 45. In addition to Bao, Babich also teaches various known techniques to detect errors (i.e., frame loss) in a video stream as well as determining a "spatio-temporal error propagation" using predictive coding scheme. Babich 3:4. For example, Babich discloses an exponential distortion algorithm (EDA) that reproduces a video "distortion envelope due to isolated losses." Id. at 3:5. The video distortion is "[d]ue to error propagation, which is caused by predictive coding," and is computed using equations (3) and (4). Id. The parameter benc, used in equations (3) and (4), "depends on the intra coded macroblock ratio, on the rate-control algorithm, on the number of reference frames stored in the encoder buffer to perform motion estimation and motion compensation, on the intra refresh rate and so on." Id. In other words, it depends on the parameters used for both intra prediction and inter prediction. 6 Appeal2017-003122 Application 13/521,172 For these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner's error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 29 and 45, as well as their respective dependent claims 30-38, 40-42, 44, 46- 55, and 57, which Appellants do not argue separately. Claim 56 depends from claim 29, and further recites: determining whether the video bitstream comprises motion directly after the error occurs; and assigning a higher penalty value to the error in response to determining that the video bitstream comprises motion directly after the error occurs, wherein the higher penalty value factors into an overall quality score for the video bitstream. App. Br. 15 (Claims App'x). In support of the rejection of claim 56, the Examiner further relies on Kim II for teaching the video bitstream as including "motion" and "assigning a higher penalty value to the error in response to determining that the video bitstream comprises motion directly after the error occurs" to support the conclusion of obviousness. Final Act. 11-12 (citing Kim II i-fi-15, 13, 23, 35, 37, 38). Appellants argue Kim II's mere disclosure of error propagation and motion "does not disclose or suggest 'assigning a higher penalty value to the error in response to determining that the video bitstream comprises motion directly after the error occurs"' as recited in claim 54. App. Br. 7-8. We disagree and adopt the Examiner's responses provided on pages 20-22 of the Examiner's Answer. For example, Kim teaches: (1) error propagation and motion (see Kim II i15); and (2) error propagation is more serious when the video stream contains motion (see Kim II i-fi-123, 37). We agree with the Examiner that because error degradation/penalty is directly 7 Appeal2017-003122 Application 13/521,172 correlated (i) the higher level of error degradation requires the higher penalty value assigned, and (ii) the combination of Babich, Bao, and Kim II teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claim 56. Ans. 22. In particular, we agree with the Examiner that "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of skill in the art." Id. (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981) ). The Examiner does not rely on the teachings of Kim II alone in rejecting claim 56, but on the combination of Babich, Bau, and Kim II. Id. at 20-22. In particular, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that it would have been obvious to "modify Babich's video quality estimation method ... with Kim-II' s error concealment method to show determining whether the video bitstream comprises motion directly after the error occurs; and assigning a high penalty value to the error in response to determining that the video bitstream comprises motion directly after the error occurs." Id. at 21. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 56. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 29-38, 40-42, and 44-- 57 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). 8 Appeal2017-003122 Application 13/521,172 DECISION As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 29--38, 40-42, and 44--57. 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) (2011 ). AFFIRMED 9