INTERDIGITAL VC HOLDINGS, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 2, 2021

2020001006 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2021)

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. 14/768,929 08/19/2015 Philippe BORDES 2014P00008WOUS 3325 119110 7590 06/02/2021 Invention Mine IDC 115 E. Ogden Ave. Suite #105-348 Naperville, IL 60563 EXAMINER NGUYEN, KATHLEEN V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/02/2021 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): bob@inventionmine.com docket@inventionmine.com uspto@dockettrak.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PHILIPPE BORDES, FRANCK HIRON, PIERRE ANDRIVON, PATRICK LOPEZ, and PHILIPPE SALMON Appeal 2020-001006 Application 14/768,929 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1–6 and 13–26 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by Appellant, and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1 See Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 2.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Thomson Licensing. Appeal Br. 3. 2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Aug. 19, 2015 (claiming benefit of PCT/EP2014/053021(filed Feb. 17, 2014) and EPO Appeal 2020-001006 Application 14/768,929 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter, according to Appellant, generally relates to methods “for decoding a picture block from a special reconstructed reference picture,” as well as corresponding coding methods, and corresponding encoding and decoding devices. Spec. ¶ 1. Specifically, Appellant’s claims recite encoders, decoders, encoding methods, and decoding methods. The decoding method “for decoding a picture block” (Spec. 3:5) reconstructs a reference picture from a different reference picture stored in a decoder picture buffer from a first layer of a multi-layered stream using data decoded from a second layer of the multi-layered stream. The method stores the reconstructed reference picture in a decoder picture buffer for the second layer. The decoder picture buffer for the second layer and the decoder picture buffer for the first layer are different buffers. The method also decodes a flag that indicates decoding for a subsequently decoded picture, decoded from the second layer of the multi-layered stream, does not use any inter-layer prediction. The method then reconstructs a picture block of the subsequently decoded picture from the reconstructed reference picture. See Spec. 3:5–4:6; Abstract. Claim 1 (directed to a decoding method), claim 4 (directed to an encoding method), claim 17 (directed to a decoder), and claim 21 (directed an encoder) are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A decoding method comprising: reconstructing a reference picture from another reference picture of a decoder picture buffer of a first layer of a multi- 13305203.5 (filed Feb. 22, 2013)); and Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed June 3, 2019. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed Jan. 11, 2019; and Answer (“Ans.”), mailed Sept. 19, 2019. Appeal 2020-001006 Application 14/768,929 3 layered stream and from data decoded from a second layer of said multi-layered stream and storing said reconstructed reference picture in a decoder picture buffer of said second layer, said decoder picture buffer of said second layer being different from said decoder picture buffer of said first layer wherein said reconstructed reference picture is indicated as not to be displayed; decoding a flag indicating that a subsequently decoded picture of the second layer is not using any inter-layer prediction; and reconstructing a picture block of said subsequently decoded picture at least from said reconstructed reference picture. Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Doser et al. (“Doser”) US 2010/0046622 A1 Feb. 25, 2010 Lee et al. (“Lee”) US 2014/0119440 A1 May 1, 2014 (filed June 15, 2012) Xiaosong Zhou and C. C. Jay Kuo, Efficient Bit Stream Switching of H.264 Coded Video, 5909 Proc. of SPIE, (2005) (“Zhou”). Rickard Sjoberg et al., Overview of HEVC High-Level Syntax and Reference Picture Management, 22 IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 1858–1870 (Dec. 2012) (“Sjoberg”). Appeal 2020-001006 Application 14/768,929 4 REJECTION3 Claims 1–6 and 13–26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhou, Doser, Sjoberg, and Lee. See Final Act. 5–16. ANALYSIS Appellant argues independent claims 1, 4, 17, and 21 together as a group and does not separately argue dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 13–16, 18– 20, and 22–26. See Appeal Br. 19. We select independent claim 1 as representative of Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–6 and 13– 26. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Obviousness Rejection of Claim 1 The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as being obvious in view of Zhou, Doser, Sjoberg, and Lee. See Final Act. 5–9; Ans. 3–7. Specifically, the Examiner finds Zhou discloses “reconstructing a reference picture from another reference picture of a decoder picture buffer of a first stream and from data decoded from a second stream and storing said reconstructed reference picture in a decoder picture buffer of said second stream.” Final Act. 5; see Final Act. 5–7 (citing Zhou pp. 1 (§ 1), 5–7(§§ 3.1, 3.2); Figs. 5– 7); Ans. 4–6. The Examiner also finds that Doser discloses “reconstructing a reference picture from another reference picture of a decoder picture buffer of a first layer of a multi-layered stream and from data decoded from a second layer of said multi-layered stream,” where the “decoder picture 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the present application has an effective filing prior to the AIA’s effective date (March 16, 2013), this decision refers to 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2020-001006 Application 14/768,929 5 buffer of said second layer” is “different from said decoder picture buffer of said first layer.” Final Act. 7; see Final Act. 7–8 (citing Doser ¶¶ 9, 10, 12, 21, 37, 51); Ans. 4–6. The Examiner further finds that Lee describes “decoding a flag indicating that a picture is not using any inter-layer prediction,” in that Lee discloses that an “encoding apparatus may transmit a flag indicating whether to perform single layer prediction,” i.e., “not using inter-layer prediction . . . for decoding.” Final Act. 8–9; see Final Act. 8–9 (citing Lee ¶¶ 213–214); Ans. 6–7. Appellant contends Zhou, Doser, Sjoberg, and Lee do not teach certain disputed features of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 13–19. Specifically, Appellant contends, inter alia, that Zhou does not disclose two distinct decoder picture buffers, i.e., “decoder picture buffers [that] are different” (Appeal Br. 15 (emphasis omitted)) and Zhou “teaches away from multi- layer encoding” (Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis omitted)). See Appeal Br. 14–17. Appellant also contends “Doser does not teach a first decoder picture buffer of the base layer being different from the decoder picture buffer of said enhancement layer.” Appeal Br. 16; see Appeal Br. 16–17. Appellant further contends that Lee’s flag “does not indicate that a subsequently decoded picture of the second layer is not using any inter-layer prediction.” Appeal Br. 17–18, see Appeal Br. 17–18. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 5–9) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3– 7) in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we provide the following analysis for emphasis. Appeal 2020-001006 Application 14/768,929 6 With respect to the “decoder picture buffer of said second layer being different from said decoder picture buffer of said first layer” (Appeal Br. 21 (Claim App.) (claim 1)), Appellant asserts that Doser does not describe “different” picture buffers. Appeal Br. 16. We disagree with Appellant’s interpretation of Doser. Initially, to the extent Appellant argues that the decoder picture buffer for the layers must be different (i.e., physical separate or distinct buffers) (see Appeal Br. 16; supra), Appellant’s Specification does not support storing the decoding information in such “different” decoder buffers—see Spec. 6:21–23(“[w]hen a reference picture is reconstructed, it is stored in the . . . Decoder Picture Buffer . . . as a newly reconstructed reference picture”); 8:20–25 (“at least one stream S_diff is decoded into decoded data . . . and into an information INFO for identifying a reconstructed reference picture R2 stored in a DPB,” and the “special reference picture . . . R1’ is reconstructed from the identified reconstructed reference picture R2 and from the decoded data” and “is then placed in a DPB”). Appellant’s Specification only describes storing information in a buffer (a Decoder Picture Buffer or DPB), not multiple buffers. Therefore, in view of Appellant’s disclosure, we broadly but reasonably construe “different” to mean different portions of a DPB as well as physically distinct DPBs (as argued by Appellant). As pointed out by the Examiner (Final Act. 7; Ans. 4), Doser (see ¶¶12, 21, 37, 51) describes a multi-layered stream, reconstructing picture information (reference picture information) for a base layer, and using the reconstructed base layer and decoded enhancement layer information to obtain a reconstructed enhancement layer (the final enhancement layer Appeal 2020-001006 Application 14/768,929 7 decoded sequence). Although Doser does not explicitly discuss buffers, the calculated decoding information must be stored, at least temporarily, in some manner and, as further pointed out by the Examiner (see Final Act. 6– 7; Ans. 4), it was known in the art to use different buffers for different streams or layers in a stream. Appellant does not dispute this finding. Thus, Doser at least suggests “storing [a] reconstructed reference picture in a decoder picture buffer of said second layer,” the “decoder picture buffer of said second layer being different from said decoder picture buffer of said first layer” (in which “another reference picture” is stored), as recited in Appellant’s claim 1. Appellant also contends that Zhou teaches away from decoding a multi-layer stream, and Zhou cannot be combined with Doser and Lee. See Appeal Br. 15–18; supra. We disagree. As pointed out by the Examiner (see Ans. 5–6), Zhou details techniques for reconstructing reference pictures using information from multiple streams, and that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to apply the technique taught by Zhou in both streams and layers,” i.e., substituting information from layers of a multilayer stream for information from distinct streams of multiple streams. Ans. 5. Although Appellant argues Zhou has various short-comings (see Appeal Br. 15–18), Appellant points to the instant Specification (not Zhou) as evidence. Zhou merely teaches these shortcomings in prior stream switching decoding techniques (see, e.g., Zhou 3, 4 (§ 2). Nothing in Zhou indicates it is incompatible with a multi-layer stream. Further, as pointed out by the Examiner, Doser describes a similar decoding technique for a multi-layered stream (using reconstructed picture Appeal 2020-001006 Application 14/768,929 8 information to obtain a decoded final enhancement layer sequence). See Ans. 5. One cannot show nonobviousness “by attacking references individually” where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). This guidance is applicable here. As previously discussed, Doser describes a multi-layered stream where picture information is reconstructed for one layer, and combined with decoded information from a second layer. See Doser ¶¶ 12, 21, 37, 51. Thus, Doser (in combination with Zhou) at least suggests decoding a multi- layer stream by reconstructing a reference picture. Additionally, although a Reply Brief is not required, Appellant did not file a Reply Brief and failed to address the Examiner’s clarified findings and additional discussion of Zhou and Doser and the disputed limitations of claim 1, or otherwise rebut the findings and responsive arguments made by the Examiner in the Answer. See Ans. 3–6. Accordingly, based on a preponderance of the evidence, Appellant’s contentions do not persuade us that Zhou teaches away from decoding a multi-layer stream or that Zhou is incompatible with Doser or Lee. With respect to “decoding a flag indicating that a subsequently decoded picture of the second layer is not using any inter-layer prediction” (Appeal Br. 21 (Claim App.) (claim 1)), Appellant asserts Lee’s flag “is different from the flag of claim 1” (Appeal Br. 17 (emphasis omitted)) and “does not indicate that a subsequently decoded picture of the second layer is not using any inter-layer prediction” because Lee “explicitly defines the flag at the current block level.” Appeal Br. 17–18. We disagree with Appellant’s interpretation of Lee. Appeal 2020-001006 Application 14/768,929 9 The Examiner explains that “Lee disclose[s] a flag indicating” whether to use “inter-layer prediction or not for a block or picture that is about to be decoded” and, therefore, can be used to indicate whether to use inter-layer prediction for a subsequently decoded picture because “the flag can be used for any blocks or pictures that will be decoded.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner cites Lee for the well-known technique of providing a flag to indicate the processing of information (e.g., using or not using inter-layer prediction). As pointed out by the Examiner, Lee states that [t]he encoding apparatus may transmit a flag indicating whether to perform interlayer prediction” (Lee ¶ 213) and “the decoding apparatus may perform interlayer prediction” based on the value of the flag (interLayerPred_flag) (Lee ¶ 214). Lee uses the flag to determine whether to perform inter-layer prediction prior to decoding. Thus, Lee at least suggests “decoding a flag indicating that a subsequently decoded picture of the second layer is not using any inter-layer prediction” as recited in claim 1. Additionally, although a Reply Brief is not required, Appellant did not file a Reply Brief and failed to address the Examiner’s clarified findings and additional discussion (see Ans. 6–7) of Lee and the disputed limitation of claim 1, or otherwise rebut the findings and responses to Appellant’s arguments made by the Examiner in the Answer. Accordingly, based on a preponderance of the evidence, Appellant’s contentions do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in concluding that Lee teaches the disputed flag limitation. Therefore, for all the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s contentions do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 Appeal 2020-001006 Application 14/768,929 10 as obvious in view of Zhou, Doser, Sjoberg, and Lee. We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 2–6 and 13–26 Independent claims 4, 17, and 21 include limitations that are commensurate to the disputed limitations of claim 1 (supra). Appellant does not argue independent claims 4, 17, and 21, or dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 13–16, 18–20, and 22–26 separately. See Appeal Br. 19. For the same reasons as claim 1, Appellant does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 4, 17, and 21, or dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 13–16, 18–20, and 22–26, not separately argued with particularity. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 2–6 and 13–26. CONCLUSION Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–6 and 13–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–6 and 13–26. Appeal 2020-001006 Application 14/768,929 11 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–6, 13–26 103 Zhou, Doser, Sjoberg, Lee 1–6, 13–26 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED