Ex Parte YANG

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 14, 2018

13715418 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/715,418 12/14/2012 49579 7590 08/16/2018 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 1100 NEW YORK A VENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 Zhijie YANG 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. 3875.6450000 1095 EXAMINER SLATER, ALISONT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2487 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/16/2018 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): e-office@stemekessler.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ZHIJIE YANG Appeal2017-001363 Application 13/715 ,418 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant is appealing the final rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). 1 Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We affirm-in-part. Introduction The invention is directed to a method that "includes the steps of receiving a video bitstream, selecting an initial extraction level, and switching to a lower quality extraction level if a decoding rate is less than a 1 Oral hearing waived. Filed July 23, 2018. Appeal2017-001363 Application 13/715,418 rate at which data extracted from the video bitstream is sent to the decoder" and "switching to a higher quality extraction level if the decoding rate is greater than a rate at which data extracted for the video bitstream is to the decoder." Abstract. As video resolution increases, so [too] does the required memory bandwidth needed to decode the video. Current video resolutions are increasing from 1080p60 to 4k x 2k x 60, with 8k x 4k x 60 envisioned in the future. Current decoding systems are not able to adapt to the increased memory bandwidth requirements. Furthermore, video is displayed in a greater variety of formats such as Picture-In-Picture (PIP), Picture-By-Picture (PBP), mosaic mode etc., which requires adaptive decoding modes. However, current decoding systems are not able to adapt to the changing video resolution and video display formats. Specification, paragraph 2. Illustrative Claims 1. An adaptive decoding system, comprising: a bitstream extractor configured to extract data including one or more of temporal sub layers, reference frames, non-reference frames, and Random Access Point (RAP) pictures from a video bitstream; a decoder coupled to the bitstream extractor and configured to decode the data extracted by the bitstream extractor; a decoding speed monitor configured to determine a decoding rate at which the decoder decodes the data extracted by the bitstream extractor; and a quality of experience (QoE) selector coupled to the decoding speed monitor and the bitstream extractor and configured to adjust an extraction quality level of the bitstream extractor based on a comparison of the decoding rate and a rate at which the bitstream extractor sends the data to the decoder. 2 Appeal2017-001363 Application 13/715,418 1 7. A method for adaptive decoding, comprising: receiving a video bitstream; switching to a lower extraction quality level when a decoding rate is less than a rate at which data extracted from the video bitstream is sent to the decoder; and switching to a higher extraction quality level when the decoding rate is greater than a rate at which the data extracted from the video bitstream is to the decoder. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1-13 and 17-19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Raveendran (US Patent 8,964,828 B2; issued February 24, 2015). Final Action 3-14. Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Raveendran and Barkley (US Patent Application Publication 2008/0068446 Al; published March 20, 2008). Final Action 15-16. Claims 14 and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Raveendran and Boyce (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0183076 Al; published July 19, 2012). Final Action 16- 19. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 9, 2016), the Answer (mailed September 2, 2016), and the Final Action (mailed November 9, 2015) for the respective details. 3 Appeal2017-001363 Application 13/715,418 35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection Appellant contends, "[ w ]hile Raveendran describes optimizing video quality, nowhere does Raveendran teach adjusting an extraction quality level of a bitstream extractor" as recited in claim 1. Appeal Brief 11. Appellant argues that, "[ o Jptimizing video quality by itself is not sufficient to teach at least the above recited feature of claim 1." Appeal Brief 11. The Examiner finds: Raveendran discloses "Thus, if mode IA is selected, the power management module 100 would evaluate if additional MIPS are available such that all of the I-frames may also be decoded for improved visual quality or granularity. VS/PL Layer Mode 3 is followed by a VS/PL Layer Mode 4A corresponding to instructions to decode based on a reduced frame rate using all I- frames and P-frames only." Col. 17, lines 33-40. Answer 2. Appellant further argues that in column 17, lines 33--40, "Raveendran is describing adjusting a decoder. Raveendran is not describing adjusting 'an extraction quality level of the bitstream extractor' as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added.). Raveendran therefore still fails to teach the above recited features of claim 1." Appeal Brief 11, see Advisory Action, mailed February 24, 2016. The Examiner determines: A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Raveendran teaches both a bitstream extractor and a decoder, connected to each other. See Fig. 4. Answer 2. 4 Appeal2017-001363 Application 13/715,418 Appellant contends: During the Examiner Interview[2], the Examiner pointed to FIG. 4 of Raveendran to allegedly teach "adjust[ing] an extraction quality level of the bitstream extractor based on comparison of the decoding rate and a rate at which the bitstream extractor sends the data to the decoder" recited in claim 1 (emphasis added.) [ ] The flowchart describes parsing and extracting layer information (Raveendran, 10:39-51, FIG. 4, step 122.) Raveendran further describes prioritizing power management (PM) sequences and projecting power and computation load for prioritized PM sequences. (Raveendran, 10:39-57, FIG. 4, steps 124-126.) Applicant fails to see how prioritizing PM sequences as described by Raveendran teaches either "determin[ing] a decoding rate at which the decoder decodes the data extracted by the bitstream extractor" or "adjust[ing] an extraction quality level of the bitstream extractor based on comparison of the decoding rate and a rate at which the bitstream extractor sends the data to the decoder" as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added.). Appeal Brief 14--15. Raveendran's Figure 4 discloses "a flowchart of a process for projecting power and computational loads for decoding prioritized power management (PM) sequences of decodable units." Raveendran column 3, lines 7-9. Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that "'each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference."' In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999). We do not find the Examiner's determination is enough to establish that claim 1 is anticipated by Raveendran. Accordingly, we find Appellant's arguments persuasive. It is not evident that Raveendran discloses adjusting an extraction quality level of a bitstream extractor as 2 See Answer 2. 5 Appeal2017-001363 Application 13/715,418 recited in claim 1. We reverse the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2-14 that depend upon claim 1. Appellant argues, "[i]ndependent claim 17 recites similar features using respective language and is also not anticipated by the applied Raveendran reference for similar reasons as claim 1 and further in view of its respective features." Appeal Brief 17. Claim 1 7 is broader in scope than claim 1. The Examiner relied upon different portions of Raveendran to address the limitations of claim 17. See Final Action 12-14(citing Raveendran, column 11, lines 30-41, Figure 6; column 12, lines 10-21, Figure 9; and column 13, line 49 to column 14, line 29, Figure 10). We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive because Appellant has either not presented separate patentability arguments or has reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 above. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection for claim 17, as well as, dependent claims 18 and 19 not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv); see also Appeal Brief 17. 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection Appellant contends, "[a]s described above, Raveendran fails to teach the features of independent claims 1 and 1 7. Barkley and Boyce, individually or in combination, fail to remedy the deficiencies of Raveendran with respect to claims 1 and 17." Appeal Brief 20. Appellant further contends, "[ c ]laims 14-16 and 20 depend from one of claim 1 and 17 and are patentable over the applied references for at least the same reasons as the independent claim from which they respectively depend and further in view of their respective features." Appeal Brief 20. 6 Appeal2017-001363 Application 13/715,418 We agree that dependent claims 14--16 are patentable over the Raveendran reference and any combination thereof for the reasons stated above in regard to claim 1. We do not agree that dependent claim 20 is patentable over the Raveendran reference and any combination thereof for the reasons stated above in regard to claim 1 7. DECISION The Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1-13 is reversed. The Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 17-19 is sustained. The Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 14--16 are reversed. The Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 20 is sustained. 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 7