Jeffrey K. Lassahn

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 2, 2019

13249832 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2019)

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. 13/249,832 09/30/2011 Jeffrey K. Lassahn 020346.080501 1089 131836 7590 08/02/2019 Hogan Lovells US LLP - Amazon 3 Embarcadero Center Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94111 EXAMINER MAHMUD, FARHAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2019 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): hlusdocketing@hoganlovells.com teri.nelmark@hoganlovells.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JEFFREY K. LASSAHN ____________ Appeal 2018-007929 Application 13/249,832 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., IRVIN E. BRANCH, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection of claims 1–20, which constitute all pending claims. See Non-Final Act. 1 (Office Action Summary) and App. Br. 5 (Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal), 19–22 (Claims App’x). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellant identifies Amazon Technologies, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2018-007929 Application 13/249,832 2 Introduction Appellant describes the invention as “relat[ing] to video processing generally and, more particularly, to a method and/or architecture for estimated macroblock distortion co-optimization.” Spec. 1:4–6. Appellant explains: Conventional rate/distortion (RD) optimization in video encoders assumes that optimization decisions made for a current frame are independent of optimizations in future frames. In practice, the assumption is not correct. It is sometimes better to choose a locally sub-optimal setting for a macroblock in one frame in order to improve the quality of future frames. Solving the co-optimization problem exactly is extremely expensive. It would be desirable to have a mechanism for inexpensively approximating the correct co-optimization solution. Spec 1:9–17. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative (shown here with a disputed limitation in italics): 1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to: receive a plurality of frames of a video sequence; pre-encode said plurality of frames of said video sequence and analyze the pre-encoded frames to estimate how much distortion caused by encoding decisions in a reference frame persists in one or more subsequent frames, wherein the reference frame is a frame in the received plurality of frames; generate one or more values for the reference frame based upon the analysis of the pre-encoded frames, wherein the one or more values are representative of distortions persisting from the reference frame into the one or more subsequent frames; Appeal 2018-007929 Application 13/249,832 3 receive said plurality of frames of said video sequence and said one or more values for the reference frame; determine a rate distortion value, based at least in part on the one or more values generated, representing estimated distortion to the one or more subsequent frames; select a mode for encoding the reference frame based at least on the rate distortion value; and encode one or more samples of the reference frame based on the mode. App. Br. 19 (Claims App’x). Rejections and References The Examiner rejected claims 1–18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Drezner (US 2005/0286628 A1; Dec. 29, 2005) and Guo (US 2007/0160137 A1; July 12, 2007). Non-Final Act. 9–25. The Examiner rejected claim 19 under § 103(a) as unpatentable over Drezner, Guo, and Christoffersen (US 2009/0003447 A1; Jan. 1, 2009). Non-Final Act. 25–27. ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that Drezner teaches the recited requirements to “pre-encode [a plurality of received frames of a video sequence] and analyze the pre-encoded frames” (the “disputed limitation”), as recited. Non-Final Act. 10–11 (citing Drezner Figs., 1, 3, ¶¶ 33–34, 36–37). Appellant contends the Examiner errs in this finding, arguing that the cited processing in Drezner does not constitute pre- encoding of received frames, and concomitantly does not teach or suggest the recited requirement to analyze the pre-encoded frames, as recited. App. Br. 8–9 (citing Drezner ¶¶ 33, 36, 63). Appeal 2018-007929 Application 13/249,832 4 The Examiner responds that Appellant’s argument is inconsistent with Appellant’s Specification discussion of Figure 1, which demonstrates that Appellant’s disclosure of “psychovisual optimization” is well understood to be the same as Drezner’s discussion of optimizing video for a human vision system (HVS). Ans. 3–7 (citing Appellant’s Fig. 1, Spec. 4:[2–16]; Drezner Fig. 3, ¶¶ 20, 33–34, 36–37). The Examiner also finds that in Drezner: The Analyzer 102, and the motion estimation/compensation unit 106 perform analysis on frames prior to encoding, in order to perform bit rate control and mode selection in unit 104. The result from the mode selection in unit 104 determines the coding mode to be utilized in the subsequent encoding process. This is interpreted to teach “a first module configured to . . . pre-encode said plurality of frames of said video sequence and analyze the pre-encoded frames.” Ans. 7. In other words, the Examiner points to Drezner’s discussion of analyzer 102, mode selection unit 104, and motion estimation/compensation unit 108 as teaching the disputed limitation. These elements are shown in Drezner’s Figure 1, reproduced here: Appeal 2018-007929 Application 13/249,832 5 Figure 1 is a “block diagram illustration of an encoding system, constructed and operative in accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present invention.” Drezner ¶ 26. Drezner’s Figure 1 shows video frame information is received by encoder 100 as inputs to analyzer 102, mode selection unit 104, and motion estimation/compensation unit 106. See Drezner ¶¶ 33–34. Figure 1 further illustrates the completion of encoding occurs through the variable length coding unit 128 (i.e., after discrete cosine transform, filter, and quantizer processing). In finding Drezner teaches the disputed limitation, the Examiner maps (1) the encoding functionality of Drezner’s encoder 100 to the disputed limitation’s requirement to pre-encode the received video frames and (2) Drezner’s analyzer 102 and motion/compensation unit 106 to the disputed limitation’s requirement to analyze the pre-encoded frames. Ans. 7. As Appellant replies, however, and we agree, Drezner’s disclosed encoding system, which “is used for bit-rate control in the quantization step during encoding,” does not teach pre-encoding of received frames and analyzing those pre-encoded frames, as recited. Id. (emphasis omitted). In particular, contrary to the disputed limitation, as Drezner’s Figure 1 illustrates, the analyzing in Drezner that the Examiner identifies occurs before completion of the encoding (or, in claim 1’s vernacular, “pre- encod[ing]”), i.e., Drezner does not disclose “analyz[ing] the pre-encoded frames,” as recited. Ans. 7; see also Drezner ¶¶ 32–34. On the record before us, therefore, Appellant persuades us the Examiner errs in finding Drezner teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 1. We likewise do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 11 and 20, each Appeal 2018-007929 Application 13/249,832 6 of which includes a limitation commensurate to claim 1’s limitation that provides the basis for our reversal and stands rejected on the same basis. We also, accordingly, do not sustain the rejections of the dependent claims. DECISION We reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1–20. REVERSED