Nokia Technologies Oy

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 29, 2021

2020003516 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 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. 15/790,314 10/23/2017 Ossi Kalevo 042933/488730 1022 10949 7590 11/29/2021 Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP c/o Alston & Bird LLP One South at The Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street Suite 4000 Charlotte, NC 28280-4000 EXAMINER LEE, Y YOUNG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2419 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/29/2021 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): usptomail@alston.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte OSSI KALEVO, EMRE AKSU, and MARTA KARCZEWICZ Appeal 2020-003516 Application 15/790,314 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MARC S. HOFF, and CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, 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 6, 9, 10, and 17–20. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nokia Technologies Oy. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-003516 Application 15/790,314 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method and a device “for reducing visual artefacts in a frame of a digital video signal, which is coded by blocks and then decoded, a block type being defined according to the coding method for a block selected from a predetermined set of coding types,” which results in reducing “visual artefacts due to a block boundary.” See Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 6, reproduced below with the disputed limitation highlighted, illustrates the claimed subject matter: 6. A method for reducing visual artefacts in a frame of a digital video signal, which is coded by blocks and then decoded, a block type selected from a predetermined set of coding types comprising at least: intra coding, copy coding, motion-compensated prediction coding, and not-coded coding, performing an adaptive filtering on a block boundary, wherein at least one parameter of the filtering performed on the block boundary depends on a block type of a block on a first side of the block boundary and on a block type of a block on a second side of the block boundary and wherein at least one parameter of the filtering is selected from a group comprising: a number of pixels to be examined, a number of pixels to be filtered, an activity measure providing an indication of the difference between pixel values on one side of the block boundary, and a filtering window. Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.). Appeal 2020-003516 Application 15/790,314 3 REFERENCES Name Reference Date Kalevo ’0252 WO 98/41025 Sept. 17, 1998 Kim A Deblocking Filter with Two Separate Modes in Block- Based Video Coding, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, Vol. 9, No. 1, February 1999, pp. 156–160. REJECTION Claims 6, 9, 10, and 17–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kalevo ’944 and Kim. Non-final Act. 3–5; Final Act. 2–3. ISSUE ON APPEAL Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following dispositive issue: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Kalevo and Kim teaches or suggests the following limitations recited in independent claims 6, 10, 19, and 20: a block type selected from a predetermined set of coding types comprising at least: intra coding, copy coding, motion-compensated prediction coding, and not-coded coding, performing an adaptive filtering on a block boundary, wherein at least one parameter of the filtering performed on the block boundary depends on a block type of a block on a first side of the block boundary and on a block type of a block on a second side of the block boundary. Appeal Br. 9–11 (emphases added). 2 The Examiner refers alternatively to Kalevo ’944 (US 6,724,944 B1; iss. Apr. 20, 2004), which is the issued patent based on Kalevo ’025. Appeal 2020-003516 Application 15/790,314 4 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s contentions in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief that the Examiner has erred, as well as the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief. As discussed below, Appellant’s contentions persuade us of Examiner error. For the limitations at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Kalevo ’944 of performing filtering on block boundary of a frame based in part on a number of pixels to be filtered and a difference between pixel values one side of the frame boundary and a filtering window. Non-final Act. 3–4 (citing Kalevo ’944 col. 1, Figs. 2–5). The Examiner further determines that Kalevo ’944 does not disclose “one parameter of the filtering performed on the block boundary depends on a block type of a block on the first and second side of the block boundary,” but Kim discloses filtering being dependent on the block type, such as smooth or complex images. Id. at 4 (citing Kim Section II, Fig. 1). According to the Examiner, combining Kalevo ’944 with Kim’s “well-known filtering decision technique” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill “to improve both subjective and objective image quality for various image features.” Id. Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding the proposed combination teaches or suggests the disputed claim limitation because “neither Kalevo nor Kim teaches or suggests that the adaptive filtering performed on a block boundary depends on the coding type as represented by the block types on the first and second sides of the block boundary, as per the independent claims.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant specifically asserts: Appeal 2020-003516 Application 15/790,314 5 While Kim discloses the use of different filters depending upon whether the boundary is in a flat region or a complex region, Kim also does not teach or suggest that the adaptive filtering performed on a block boundary depends on the coding type as represented by the block types on the first and second sides of the block boundary. In this regard, the determination as to whether a region is flat or complex as per Kim has not (no] relationship to the coding type and, as such, has no relationship to the block type of the independent claims, which is recited to be selected from a set of coding types. Thus, the variation in the filter applied by Kim depending upon whether a region is flat or complex does not teach or suggest that the adaptive filtering performed on a block boundary depends on the coding type as represented by the block types on the first and second sides of the block boundary. Id. at 6–7 (emphasis added). In response, the Examiner restates the findings and the rationale for the rejection by explaining “it is noted appellant concedes on p. 6, last paragraph, that Kim discloses the use of different filters depending upon blocks of flat type or complex type.” Ans. 3. The Examiner also reasons that If Kim discloses that the filtering method of a flat block is different from the filtering method of a complex block, Kim meets the definition of ‘depends’ in its broadest reasonable sense, consistent with appellant’s disclosure (e.g. [0030] of appellant’s own spec), since the different encoding methods for the blocks have influence on the filtering method. Id. Based on our review of the references’ disclosures, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We specifically agree with Appellant that “the block types that are considered by the independent claims bear no relationship to whether a region is a flat region or a complex region as Appeal 2020-003516 Application 15/790,314 6 disclosed by Kim.” See Reply Br. 3. Kim describes the filtering process as providing a strong smoothing for flat regions, whereas complex regions require filtering only at the block boundaries. Kim p. 157, right-hand column. In other words, Kim’s disclosure of flat and complex regions relate to the relative values of the image pixels in different parts of a block that form a flat region having limited variations compared to a complex region having a large number of variations in pixel values. Therefore, Kim, at best, discloses filtering parameters that depend on the image content of the block, rather than the recited block type as defined by the coding types performed on that block. See claim 1, Spec. ¶ 4. In view of the above analysis, we are persuaded by Appellant’s contention that combining the references, even if properly combined, does not teach or suggest the recited limitation of the adaptive filtering performed on a block boundary depending on the coding type as represented by the block types on the first and second sides of the block boundary, wherein a block type is selected from a predetermined set of coding types. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we are constrained to conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6, as well as independent claims 10, 19, and 20 that recite similar limitations, as well as claims 9, 17, and 18 dependent therefrom, as obvious. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 9, 10, and 17–20. Appeal 2020-003516 Application 15/790,314 7 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 6, 9, 10, 17–20 103(a) Kalevo, Kim 6, 9, 10, 17– 20 REVERSED