Ex Parte Yu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 26, 201713863127 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/863,127 04/15/2013 Yue Yu GOGL-1097-D 1047 124222 7590 05/31/2017 Google Technology Holdings LLC c/o Young Basile Hanlon & MacFarlane PC 3001 W. Big Beaver Road, Ste. 624 Troy, MI 48084 EXAMINER LE, PETER D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2488 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2017 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 @ youngbasile. com audit @ youngbasile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YUE YU, JIAN LOU, and LIMIN WANG Appeal 2017-003950 Application 13/863,1271 Technology Center 2400 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and JOHN D. HAMANN, 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—12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention relates to encoding data, including “generating and processing slice headers with high efficiency video coded data.” Spec. 12. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Google Technology Holdings LLC. Br. 3. Appeal 2017-003950 Application 13/863,127 and is reproduced below with emphasis added to highlight the disputed limitation. 1. In a processing device for decoding a sequence comprising a plurality of pictures, each of the plurality of pictures partitionable into one or more slices, each of the one or more slices processed at least in part according to a slice header, a method of processing the slice header describing slice parameters, comprising: (a) determining, if a slice of the one or more slices is an inter-predicted slice according to slice type data, wherein: the slice is a B-type slice if the at least one coding unit of the slice is coded using motion vector compensation according to up to two motion vectors associated with at least one reference picture; the slice is a P-type slice if at least one coding unit of the slice is coded using motion vector compensation according to no more than one motion vector associated with the at least one reference picture; the slice is an I-type slice if no coding units of the slice are coded using motion vector compensation; and the slice is an inter-predicted slice only if it is a P-type slice or a B-type slice; (b) if the slice is determined to be an inter-picture predicted slice, performing, with further slice type testing performed only to identify the inter-predicted slice as either a P-type slice or a B-type slice and with no further slice testing performed to identify the inter-predicted slice as a slice type other than a P-type slice or a B-type slice: (1) determining if a sequence temporal motion vector prediction flag indicates that the sequence in which the picture is disposed may be encoded using the at least one temporal motion vector prediction; (2) if the sequence temporal motion vector prediction flag indicates that the sequence in which the picture is disposed may be encoded using the at least one temporal motion vector prediction, reading a picture temporal motion vector prediction enable flag indicating 2 Appeal 2017-003950 Application 13/863,127 that the picture in which the slice is disposed is encoded using at least one temporal motion vector prediction; (3) reading a reference picture override flag indicating whether data describing a maximum index of at least one list of reference pictures having the at least one reference picture is included in the slice header; (4) if the read reference picture override flag indicates that the data describing the maximum index of the at least one list of reference pictures having the at least one reference picture is present, reading the data; (5) reading reference picture list modification information only if the at least one reference picture is not implicitly defined; (6) reading information indicating a structure of motion vector differences used in the motion vector compensation prediction if the slice is a B-slice; (7) reading information defining initialization of context variables for entropy coding of the slice only if the information defining initialization of the context variables is present in the slice header; (c) decoding an initial value for coding blocks within the slice; (d) decoding deblocking filter parameters according to the slice header; (e) again determining, if a slice of the one or more slices is an inter-predicted slice according to slice type data; (f) if the slice is determined to be an inter-picture predicted slice, performing, with further slice type testing performed only to identify the inter-predicted slice as either a P-type slice or a B-type slice and with no further slice testing performed to identify the inter-predicted slice as a slice type other than a P-type slice or a B-type slice: (1) determining if the slice is encoded using at least one temporal motion vector predictor according to the read picture temporal motion vector prediction enable flag; (2) only if the slice encoded using at least one temporal motion vector predictor, reading information describing at least one reference picture of the slice 3 Appeal 2017-003950 Application 13/863,127 associated with the at least one temporal motion vector predictor at least in part according to whether the slice is a P-type slice or a B-type slice; (3) applying a weighted prediction according to whether the slice is a B-type slice or a P-type slice; and (4) determining, from the slice header, a maximum number of merged temporal motion vector predictor candidates for the slice. REJECTION2 ON APPEAL The Examiner rejected claims 1—12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Li et al. (US 2012/0287999 Al; published Nov. 15, 2012) (hereinafter “Li”) and Information technology — Coding of audio-visual objects—Part 10: Advanced Video Coding (ISO/IEC 14496-10) (Int’lOrg. Standardization 2004) (hereinafter “ISO”). ANALYSIS Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Li and ISO teaches or suggests: if the slice is determined to be an inter-picture predicted slice, performing, with further slice type testing performed only to identify the inter-predicted slice as either a P-type slice or a B-type slice and with no further slice testing performed to identify the inter-predicted slice as a slice type other than a P-type slice or a B-type slice[,] 2 The Examiner also provisionally rejected claims 1—12 for obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1—12 of copending Application No. 13/863,094. No patent has issued yet from that copending Application, nor do Appellants present arguments traversing this provisional rejection. We find it is premature to address this provisional rejection. See In re Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884, 1885 (BPAI2010) (precedential). 4 Appeal 2017-003950 Application 13/863,127 as recited in independent claims 1 and 9, and similarly recited in independent claim 5. Br. 11—15. Before turning to whether the combination teaches or suggests the disputed limitation with respect to device claim 9 and method claim 5, we first address the disputed limitation in the context of method claim 1. (1) Method claim 1 Claim 1 is directed to “a method of processing the slice header describing slice parameters.” Br. 17—19. In the context of claim 1, the disputed limitation is a conditional step (i.e., performing further slice type testing “only to identity the inter-predicted slice as either a P-type slice or a B-type slice and with no further slice testing performed to identity the inter- predicted slice as a slice type other than a P-type slice or a B-type slice” is conditioned (i.e., “if’) on the slice being “determined to be an inter-picture predicted slice”). A conditional step employed in a method claim need not be found in the prior art if, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the method need not invoke those steps. See Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792, at *4 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential) (holding “[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the remaining method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim”). The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 encompasses instances in which the prerequisite condition for the disputed limitation is not met (i.e., when the slice is determined not to be an inter-picture predicted slice). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. 5 Appeal 2017-003950 Application 13/863,127 (2) Device claim 9 and method claim 5 Claim 9 is directed to “[a] processing device for decoding a sequence.” Br. 25. Being a device claim, the Examiner needs to show that the combination teaches or suggests the disputed limitation because the processing device (e.g., the processor) needs to have the programming for the “if’ condition (i.e., “if the slice is determined to be an inter-picture predicted slice”) resident in memory regardless of whether the condition is ever met.3 Claim 5 is a method claim directed to “a method of generating the slice header describing slice parameters.” Br. 21. Although claim 5 is a method claim, the disputed limitation in claim 5 is embedded within a non conditional step (i.e., “generating slice header logic for performing” in accordance with the disputed limitation). Id. Thus, claim 5 is akin to device claim 9 where the generating of the logic needs to occur regardless of whether the condition is ever met and Schulhauser does not apply. Appellants argue the combination of Li and ISO, and ISO in particular, fails to teach or suggest limiting the further slice testing to testing that is performed “only to identify the inter-predicted slice as either a P-type slice or a B-type slice.” Br. 11—15. More specifically, Appellants argue the portions of ISO cited by the Examiner “explicitly rely upon further slice type testing that is performed for reasons [‘Jother than to identify the interpredicted slice as either a P-type slice or a B-type slice.’ For example, Section 7.3.3 . . . shows the inter-predicted slice is tested to identify SP-type 3 Ex parte Katz also discusses the difference in what the Examiner needs to show for unpatentability for conditional limitations in non-method claims versus method claims. See Katz, No. 2010-006083, 2011 WL 514314, at *A-5 (BPAIJan. 27, 2011). 6 Appeal 2017-003950 Application 13/863,127 slices, Si-type slices and I-type slices in addition to P-type and B-type slices.” Br. 13 (citing ISO 35 § 7.3.3 (“Slice header syntax”)). The Examiner finds the combination of Li and ISO teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 32—38. First, the Examiner finds the phrase ‘“with further slice type testing performed only to identify the inter- predicted slice ....’ does not provide any patentable weight.” Id. at 36. Rather, the Examiner finds this “further . . . testing” phrase is redundant because the slice already has been determined to be an inter-picture predicted slice (e.g., the disputed limitation begins with the condition “if the slice is determined to be an inter-picture predicted slice”). Id. The Examiner also finds ISO teaches or suggests that the slice header contains logic condition testing (e.g., “if’ statements) which is separate and distinct (i.e., no redundancy between “if’ statements). Id. at 34—36 (citing ISO § 7.3.3). Thus, ISO teaches a separate portion of the header that concerns slice type testing performed only to identify the slice as an inter- predicted slice. Id.', see also id. at 37—38 (citing ISO § 7.3.3) (finding that the first logic condition is taught by “‘if (slice_type == P II slice type == SP slice_type == B)’” and the further slice testing performed only to identify the slice as a B-type slice is taught by “‘if (slice_type == B)’”). We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The combination of Li and ISO fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. See ISO 35—36 (§ 7.3.3 “Slice header syntax”); 62 (“Table 7-3 - Name association to slice_type”). The broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the Specification, of “further slice type testing performed only to identify the inter-predicted slice as either a P-type slice or a B-type slice” is not commensurate in scope (i.e., redundant) with “determining, if a slice of the 7 Appeal 2017-003950 Application 13/863,127 one or more slices is an inter-predicted slice according to slice type data.” For example, determining if a slice is an inter-predicted slice can be accomplished by determining the slice is not an I-type slice (e.g., if a coding unit within the slice is coded using motion compensation). See Br. 23—24 (reciting claim 9); see also Spec. ^fl[ 142, 153, 155, 157. In contrast, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “identifying] the inter-predicted slice as either a P-type slice or a B-type slice” requires determining whether the slice is a P-type or whether the slice instead is a B-type — in other words, the slice’s specific type must be identified. See Spec, 153, 157; Figs. 20A-20B. We also agree with Appellants that ISO does not teach or suggest having “no further slice testing performed to identity the inter-predicted slice as a slice type other than a P-type slice or a B-type slice” in the context of the claims. See, e.g., ISO § 7.3.3.1 (teaching a logical test to determine whether the slice type is type I or type SI). More specifically, having ISO teach that a portion of the further testing is conditioned on a slice being a B- type (i.e., “if (slice_type == B)”) does not teach or suggest that no further slice testing is performed to identify the inter-predicted slice as a slice type other than a P-type slice or a B-type slice. See, e.g., ISO § 7.3.3 (teaching further testing for, inter alia, SP and SI slice types). CONCLUSION Based on our above findings, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2-4, as Appellants do not provide separate arguments for their patentability. Based on our above findings, we 8 Appeal 2017-003950 Application 13/863,127 do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 5 and 9, nor claims 6—8 and 10-12, which depend therefrom, respectively. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1—4. We reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 5—12. 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 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation