Ex Parte Samuelsson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 22, 2018

13641714 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/641,714 10/17/2012 Jonatan Samuelsson 24112 7590 08/22/2018 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC 1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300 Cary, NC 27518 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. 4015-8306 I P34997-US2 8779 EXAMINER NOH,JAENAM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2481 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/22/2018 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JONATAN SAMUELSSON and RICKARD SJOBERG Appeal2017-009758 Application 13/641,714 1 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN J. JEFFERY, CATHERINE SHIANG, and CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 15, 17-22, and 24--28, which constitute the only claims pending. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 The real party in interest is identified as Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (publ). App. Br. 2. Appeal2017-009758 Application 13/641, 714 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention relates to managing video transmission of clean random access (CRA) pictures. Abstract; Spec. 1:7-2:31. Claim 15, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added): 15. A method of encoding pictures of a video stream, the method compnsmg: assigning a layer identifier, using a processor of an encoder, to pictures encoded as Clean Random Access (CRA) pictures, the CRA pictures being self-contained and identifiable as a type of random access point pictures for which all coded pictures that follow that type of random access point picture both in decoding order and output order are not allowed to use inter prediction from any picture that precedes the random access point picture of said type; and setting, using the processor, the layer identifier to a lowest layer identity to enable a decoder to determine the validity of the video stream. App.Br. 9 (Claims Appendix). THE REJECTION Claims 15, 17-22, and 24--28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2012/0230401 Al; pub. September 13, 2012) ("Chen 1") in view of Chen et al. (US 2012/0023249 Al; pub. January 26, 2012) ("Chen 2"). Final Act. 7-16. ANALYSIS Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Chen 1 and Chen 2 teaches the claim limitations of independent claims 15 and 22. App. Br. 2-7; Reply Br. 2-9. According to Appellants, "[ n ]either Chen 1 nor Chen 2 provides any teachings about the setting of an assigned layer ID to a particular value to achieve a particular result." App. Br. 4. Appellants argue the Examiner's finding, that Chen 2 discloses the general idea of assigning a layer ID could 2 Appeal2017-009758 Application 13/641, 714 be applied to Chen 1 such that the CRA picture of Chen 1 would be assigned a layer ID, is conclusory. Id. According to Appellants: The general idea of assigning some layer ID to CRA pictures does not teach or suggest the intentional act of setting an assigned layer ID a particular way, i.e., to a lowest layer identity. Simply because layers are assumed to have layer IDs, and simply because CRA pictures are assumed to be assigned some kind of layer ID, does not mean the cited art obviously teaches or suggests that an assigned layer ID should, could, or even would be intentionally set to some particular layer ID, such as the claimed lowest layer identity. In other words, the happenstance occurrence of a CRA picture ending up with a particular layer ID, e.g., the lowest layer ID, cannot be construed as equivalent to or an obvious showing of the intentional act of the setting of a layer identifier assigned to CRA pictures to a lowest layer identity to enable a decoder to determine the validity of the video stream, as recited in the independent claims. Such happenstance occurrences does not render the claimed assignment obvious because a happenstance occurrence does not provide the claimed assignment (i.e., to the lowest layer identity) for all of the claimed pictures (i.e., the CRA pictures defined in the claims), and thus does not address or solve the problem addressed and solved by the claimed solution. Id. at 4--5. Appellants further argue Chen 1 and Chen 2 do not consider or attempt to solve the encoding problem addressed by the pending claims and, therefore, there is no basis for the Examiner's position that the layer ID teachings of Chen 1 and/ or Chen 2 necessarily include the idea of setting an assigned layer ID for specifically encoded pictures (CRA pictures) to a specific value (a lowest layer identity) for a specific reason (to enable a decoder to determine the validity of the video stream). Id. at 5. Appellants argue Chen 2 teaching of a base layer does not teach the claimed setting of an assigned layer ID because 3 Appeal2017-009758 Application 13/641, 714 [ e ]ven if arguendo the cited art does teach the existence of reference pictures in a base layer, the existence of such pictures in such a layer is not the same as the actual assignment of a particular picture to a particular layer, where the layer identifier for this particular layer is set as claimed. Id. at 5---6. According to Appellants, "neither Chen 1 nor Chen 2 even mentions the actual assignment of any pictures, much less 'reference pictures,' to a base layer." Id. at 6. Appellants further argue the Specification refutes the Examiner's basis for rejection that "reference pictures (CRA/ODR being a type of reference picture) are normally assigned to a base layer (lowest layer) as well known in the art and as taught by Chen 2." Id. at 6-7 (citing Final Act. 3). In particular, Appellants argue the Specification "discusses what happens when a CRA picture is not assigned to a base layer, and thus has a temporal ID that exceeds that of a picture being encoded." Id. at 7 (citing Spec. 6:23-23). Appellants then argue, because the Examiner errs in the "normal assignment of reference pictures to a base layer," the Examiner's finding that it would be obvious to combine Chen 2 with Chen 1 to achieve the claimed setting of the assigned layer ID is not based on legally sufficient reasoning. Id. The Examiner finds the combination of Chen 1 and Chen 2 teaches the independent claim 15 limitations, relies on Chen 2 for teaching the limitation "setting, using the processor, the layer identifier to a lowest layer identity to enable a decoder to determine the validity of the video stream," and provides a basis for the combination of Chen 1 and Chen 2. Final Act. 7-10; Ans. 2-5 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds assigning layer ID's for pictures in a multi-layered coding scheme was well known and would have been applicable to the combination of Chen 1 and Chen 2, particularly 4 Appeal2017-009758 Application 13/641, 714 in view of the Chen 2 teaching of disclosing pictures in various layers, including the base layer, having layer IDs. Ans. 11-12. The Examiner finds Chen 2 teaches assigning a reference picture (CRA/ODR) to the base layer (lowest level) was well known in the art. Id. The Examiner finds Chen 2 additionally teaches the reference pictures have layer ID's and "[t]he disclosed 'temporal_id element' in Chen 2 is a general description of existence of layer IDs for pictures in different layers." Id. at 13 (citing Chen 2 if 74). Regarding the limitation "to enable a decoder to determine the validity of the video stream," the Examiner finds Chen 2 teaches this limitation. Final Act. 9-10 (citing Chen 2 ,r,r 45, 74, 98) (emphasis added). Regarding the relevance of the Specification argued by Appellants, the Examiner reasons, because the combination of Chen 1 and Chen 2 teaches the claim 15 limitations, the Specification portion cited by Appellants is irrelevant. Ans. 14--15. Regarding Appellants' argument that "happenstance occurrence is not the same as intentional actions," the Examiner finds the combination of Chen 1 and Chen 2 teaches the claim 15 limitations. Final Act. 3. In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue the Examiner fails to consider the limitations of the claims as a whole as the claims "do not only recite setting the assigned layer ID (for CRA pictures) to a lowest layer identity, but rather recite setting the assigned layer ID (for CRA pictures) to a lowest layer identity to enable the decoder to determine the validity of the video stream." Reply Br. 2. According to Appellants, the happenstance occurrence of a reference picture ending up in a particular layer, e.g., the base layer, cannot be construed as equivalent to or an obvious showing of the intentional act of 5 Appeal2017-009758 Application 13/641, 714 setting a layer identifier assigned to particular pictures (i.e., CRA pictures) to the a particular layer identity (i.e., the lowest layer identity) to achieve a particular result (i.e., to enable a decoder to determine the validity of the video stream), as recited in the independent claims. Id. at 2-3. And Appellants argue the prior art happenstance occurrence does not address or solve the problem addressed and solved by the claimed solution. Id. at 3. Appellants argue the Examiner's findings in the Answer are conclusory as to how layer ID's are assigned. Id. at 3-5. Appellants argue the references individually while the rejection is based on the combination of the teachings of Chen 1 and Chen 2. In re Keller, 642 F.2d413, 426 (CCPA 1981) ("[O]ne cannot shownon- obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references." (citations omitted)); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants argue an unreasonably narrow teaching of the cited references and an overly demanding standard of obviousness. The 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 ordinary skill in the art. Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. As stated by the Supreme Court, the Examiner's obviousness rejection must be based on: "[S]ome articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." ... [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can 6 Appeal2017-009758 Application 13/641, 714 take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The Examiner's findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle" since the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. Based upon the teachings of the references and the fact that each claimed element was well-known in the art, we agree with the Examiner the combination of familiar elements according to known methods would have been obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-16. On this record, Appellants do not present sufficient or persuasive evidence that the combination of the cited references was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 419-21). Nor have Appellants provided objective evidence of secondary considerations, which our reviewing court guides "operates as a beneficial check on hindsight." Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese & Powder Sys., Inc., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree, instead, with the Examiner's findings and conclusions that the combination of Chen 1 and Chen 2 teaches the limitations of claim 15. Regarding Appellants' assertion of a required "intentional act," the Examiner provides adequate 7 Appeal2017-009758 Application 13/641, 714 evidence to support the findings and conclusions and, additionally, we note claim 15 does not recite the term "intentional." In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 15, and independent claim 22 which is argued together with claim 15. We also sustain the rejection of claims 17-21 and 24--28 as these claims are not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 15, 17-22, and 24--28 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). 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). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8