GOOGLE LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 28, 2022

2021000190 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2022)

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. 16/239,633 01/04/2019 Ronald Sebastiaan Bultje GOGL-953-B 9804 97818 7590 01/28/2022 Google LLC c/o Young Basile Hanlon & MacFarlane, P.C. 3001 West Big Beaver Rd., Ste. 624 Troy, MI 48084-3107 EXAMINER BOYLAN, JAMES T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/28/2022 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): audit@youngbasile.com docketing@youngbasile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RONALD SEBASTIAAN BULTJE and SAMI ALEKSI PIETILӒ Appeal 2021-000190 Application 16/239,633 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JASON J. CHUNG, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-5 and 7-19. Final Act. 1. Claims 6 and 20 are objected to as depending from rejected claims. Final Act. 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Google LLC. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-000190 Application 16/239,633 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter generally relates to encoding and decoding of video stream data for transmission or storage. Spec. ¶ 3. Encoding is needed to compress the large amount of data in a video stream. Id. ¶ 2. A video sequence may include a sequence of adjacent frames, wherein each frame represents a single image from the video stream. Id. ¶ 40. Each frame may be composed of blocks, and each block can be a group of pixels (for example, a 8x8 group), a macroblock, a segment, a slice, or any other portion of a frame. Id. To compress the data, each frame within the video stream may be processed in units of blocks. Id. ¶ 43. A prediction block may be generated using intra/inter prediction from samples in a current or reference frame that have previously been encoded and reconstructed. Id. ¶ 44. The number of blocks in a row or column is referred to as the cardinality of the row or column, or alternately, the frame-width or frame- height, respectively. Id. ¶ 53. For example, a frame composed of an 8x8 array of blocks “has a frame-width of eight, indicating a cardinality of eight horizontally adjacent blocks per frame row, and a frame-height of eight, indicating a cardinality of eight vertically adjacent blocks per frame column.” Id. The frame may then be tiled; i.e., organized into subsections. Id. ¶ 55, Figs. 7-9. Figure 9 illustrates a frame, subdivided into blocks, that is tiled both horizontally and vertically: Appeal 2021-000190 Application 16/239,633 3 Figure 9 portrays a frame 900 having an 8x8 array of blocks 910, and the frame is divided into eight tiles that each have a tile height of four and a tile width of two. Id. ¶ 62. The tile is encoded for transmission in a bitstream. Id. ¶ 71. For example, the tile may be compressed as an array of bytes, and a tile size that indicates the number of bytes may be prepended to the tile. ¶ 71. Independent claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method comprising: encoding, by a processor, a video stream including a plurality of frames, wherein encoding the video stream includes: identifying a current frame from the plurality of frames, wherein the current frame includes a plurality of blocks, and wherein the current frame has a frame-width indicating a cardinality of horizontally adjacent blocks in the current frame, and a frame-height indicating a cardinality of vertically adjacent blocks in the current frame; encoding the current frame by: identifying a tile-width for encoding a current tile of the current frame, the tile-width indicating a cardinality of horizontally adjacent blocks in the current tile; Appeal 2021-000190 Application 16/239,633 4 identifying a tile-height for encoding the current tile of the current frame, the tile-height indicating a cardinality of vertically adjacent block in the current tile; and generating an encoded tile by encoding the current tile, such that a row of the current tile includes tile-width horizontally adjacent blocks from the plurality of blocks, and a column of the current tile includes tile-height vertically adjacent blocks from the plurality of blocks; and outputting the encoded tile, wherein outputting the encoded tile includes including an encoded-tile size in an output bitstream, the encoded-tile size indicating a cardinality of bytes for including the encoded tile in the output bitstream. Appeal Br. 15. Claim 8 recites a similar method of decoding, and claim 15 recites a storage medium for a similar method of encoding. Id. at 16-19. Dependent claims 2-5, 9-16, 18, and 19 incorporate the limitations of their respective independent claims. Id. at 15-19. REFERENCES Name Reference Date Scholander et al. (“Scholander”) US 7,535,474 B1 May 19, 2009 Subramaniam US 2009/0003714 A1 Jan. 1, 2009 Wang et al. (“Wang ’035”) US 2013/0101035 A1 Apr. 25, 2013 Wang et al. (“Wang ’775”) US 2013/0182775 A1 July 18, 2013 Mody US 2015/0003520 A1 Jan. 1, 2015 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combination of Wang ’035, Mody, and Wang ’775. Final Act. 4. Appeal 2021-000190 Application 16/239,633 5 Claims 3, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combination of Wang ’035, Mody, Wang ’775, and Subramaniam. Final Act. 13. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combination of Wang ’035, Mody, Wang ’775, and Scholander. Final Act. 12. OPINION Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown the combined teachings of Wang ’035, Mody, and Wang ’775 teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1, and that the Examiner has not shown motivation for the combination. Appeal Br. 6-9. We find dispositive Appellant’s argument that the combination fails to teach or suggest the limitation, “outputting the encoded tile, wherein outputting the encoded tile includes including an encoded-tile size in an output bitstream, the encoded-tile size indicating a cardinality of bytes for including the encoded tile in the output bitstream,” as set forth in claim 1. The Examiner finds this limitation to be taught by Wang ’775. Final Act. 6. The Examiner points to Wang ’775’s teaching of tile column and tile row boundaries that are explicitly signaled using column_width and row_height syntax elements. Id. (citing Wang ’775 ¶ 117). The Examiner finds those elements describe the tile’s width and height, which the Examiner finds equivalent or analogous to a tile size. Ans. 4-5 (citing Wang ’775 ¶ 121). The Examiner further finds that the size of the tile is incorporated by a number (cardinality) of bytes, “due to it being syntax elements in a video bitstream.” Ans. 4-5. The Examiner explains that the elements in the Appeal 2021-000190 Application 16/239,633 6 encoded syntax video stream are a number of bits, as this is an inherent property of video compression. Id. at 5. Appellant contends that the Examiner errs by failing to distinguish Wang ’775’s “tile size” and the claimed “encoded-tile size.” Appeal Br. 7- 8. Appellant argues that the Examiner refers to an “encoded tile size,” not an “encoded-tile size.” Reply Br. 3 (citing Ans. 5). Appellant argues that at best, Wang ’775 teaches including a tile height and tile width in the video stream, which the decoder then uses to determine the widths and heights of the tiles to be decoded. Appeal Br. 8 (citing Wang ’775 ¶ 121). Appellant argues that Wang ’775’s column_width and row_height syntax elements do not provide the claimed “encoded-file size.” Id. at 7. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s finding that some number of bits in the bitstream would correspond to Wang ’775’s column_width and row_height syntax elements is incorrectly based on the nature of the syntax elements as being included in a bitstream. Appeal Br. 8 (citing Final Act. 2). Even if this is the case, Appellant argues, Wang ’775 describes a particular type of coding (“Arithmetic entropy coding”) such that the encoded bits may not directly correlate to the unencoded width/height information. Appeal Br. 9-10 (noting that Wang ’035 also uses such encoding). Thus, Appellant reasons, the unencoded column_width and row_height syntax elements do not represent an “encoded-tile size indicating a cardinality of bytes for including the encoded tile in the output bitstream” as claimed. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s finding would render that limitation redundant. Reply Br. 4. We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Claim 1 requires distinct steps of identifying a tile-width and tile-height (each indicating the number of blocks therein), encoding the tile, and outputting the encoded tile and an Appeal 2021-000190 Application 16/239,633 7 encoded-tile size. The Examiner finds the tile height and tile width (in Wang ’035) to teach identifying the tile-width and tile-height in terms of the blocks therein. Final Act. 4 (citing Wang ’035 ¶ 37, Fig. 5). The Examiner further finds Wang ’035 to teach grouping tiles and encoding the video according to the grouping of tiles, “using syntax information.” Id. at 4-5 (citing Wang ’035 ¶ 61). The Examiner finds the syntax information to be taught by the column_width and row_height syntax elements of Wang ’775. Id. at 6 (citing Wang ’775 ¶ 117). Thus, the Examiner relies on the column- width and column-height information of Wang ’035, represented explicitly by syntax elements in Wang ’775, to teach the tile-width and tile-height of the tile to be encoded. However, the Examiner relies on the same syntax elements for the separate step of including an encoded-tile size for outputting the encoded tile. Id. at 6. We do not agree that the record supports such reliance. Wang ’775 describes the column_width and column_height syntax elements as being used in the decoding to generate vectors indicating the width and height of the columns of tiles in the pictures. Wang ¶ 121. Such use of the syntax elements to decode the data into a picture is consistent with Examiner’s finding that Wang ’775 uses these syntax elements to encode and decode the data. Yet these elements describe the size of the unencoded tiles, not the size of encoded tiles. The Examiner has not pointed to any description in Wang ’775 of an additional “encoded-tile size.” We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the claimed “encoded-tile” is different from the claimed “current tile,” and consequently, that a representation of the tile size is different from a representation of the encoded-tile size. First, we credit Appellant’s unrebutted argument that Wang (both ’035 and ’775) applies Arithmetic entropy coding such that Appeal 2021-000190 Application 16/239,633 8 individual syntax elements may not directly correlate to a particular number of bytes in an encoded bitstream. Appeal Br. 9. To the extent that the Examiner finds that “elements in the encoded syntax video stream are inherently a number of bits,” the Examiner has not explained how those elements necessarily represent an encoded-tile size under the encoding scheme of Wang ’035 and Wang ’775. Ans. 5. We further note that Appellant’s Specification describes the encoded- tile size as for a different purpose from the tile-height and tile-width information. Although Appellant’s tile-height and tile-width information is used for encoding (similar to either Wang reference), information on the compressed tile, indicating the number of bytes of tile in the array, is disclosed for identifying and moving between tiles, “such as for error resilience or parallelism.” Spec. ¶ 71. Although limitations from the Specification are not imported into the claims, the different purposes for tile- height/length information and for compressed tile byte array information (i.e., encoded-tile size) further support Appellant’s distinction between the claimed tile-width/tile-height and the separately claimed encoded-tile size. For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11-13, and 15-19 is based on the same grounds of rejection and the same flawed findings.2 The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 10, 14, and 18, although involving additional references, also relies upon the same flawed findings. 2 Although the Examiner’s statement of the rejection includes claim 10 (Final Act. 4), claim 10 is notably not individually addressed by the combination of Wang ’035, Wang ’775, and Mody. Final Act. 4-12. Appeal 2021-000190 Application 16/239,633 9 CONCLUSION For the above-described reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-19. Appeal 2021-000190 Application 16/239,633 10 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11- 13, 15- 19 103 Wang ’035, Mody, Wang ’775 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11- 13, 15-19 3, 10, 18 103 Wang ’035, Mody, Wang ’775, Subramaniam 3, 10, 18 14 103 Wang ’035, Mody, Wang ’775, Scholander 14 Overall Outcome 1-5, 7-19 REVERSED