QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 1, 2021

2020002361 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 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. 15/005,564 01/25/2016 Ying Chen 1212-998US01/151028 5459 15150 7590 12/01/2021 Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A. 1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100 Woodbury, MN 55125 EXAMINER LEE, Y YOUNG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2419 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/01/2021 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): ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _______________ Ex parte YING CHEN, XIANG LI, HONGBIN LIU, JIANLE CHEN, LI ZHANG, and MARTA KARCZEWICZ _______________ Appeal 2020-002361 Application 15/005,564 Technology Center 2400 _______________ Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JASON J. CHUNG, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1–3, 15–17, 30–32, and 44–46. Appellant has withdrawn claims 4– 14, 18–29, 33–43, and 47–57 from consideration. See Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies Qualcomm Incorporated as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-002361 Application 15/005,564 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to video coding. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 6. More particularly, Appellant describes “cod[ing] motion information for a current block (e.g., a current prediction unit (PU)) using advanced temporal motion vector prediction (ATMVP).” Spec. ¶ 6. According to the Specification, “ATMVP generally involves using a temporal motion vector to identify a corresponding prediction unit that is split into sub-PUs.” Spec. ¶ 6. Figure 8 is illustrative and is reproduced below: Figure 8 is a diagram illustrating sub-PU motion prediction from a reference picture. Spec. ¶¶ 19, 171. In Figure 8, a current picture (180) includes a PU (184). Spec. ¶ 171. Additionally, motion vector (192) identifies PU (186) of reference picture (182) relative to PU (184). Spec. ¶ 171. As shown, PU (186) is partitioned into a plurality of sub-PUs (188A, Appeal 2020-002361 Application 15/005,564 3 188B, 188C, 188D), each sub-PU having a motion vector (i.e., 190A, 190B, 190C, 190D, respectively). Spec. ¶ 171. According to the Specification, “although current PU 184 is not actually partitioned into separate sub-PUs, in this example, current PU 184 may be predicted using motion information from sub-PUs 188A–188D.” Spec. ¶ 171. Thus, current PU (184) may be predicted using motion vectors (190A–190D) inherited from sub-PUs (188A–188D) of reference picture (182), “without the signaling overhead of syntax elements used to split current PU 184 into multiple sub-PUs.” Spec. ¶ 171. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics: 1. A method of coding video data, the method comprising: forming, for a current block of video data, a merge candidate list including a plurality of merge candidates, the plurality of merge candidates including four spatial neighboring candidates from four neighboring blocks to the current block and, immediately following the four spatial neighboring candidates, an advanced temporal motion vector prediction (ATMVP) candidate, wherein the ATMVP candidate indicates that the current block is to be predicted using a block identified by the ATMVP candidate that is split into a plurality of sub-blocks, each of the plurality of sub-blocks having a respective set of motion information; coding an index into the merge candidate list that identifies the ATMVP candidate of the plurality of merge candidates in the merge candidate list; and based on the index identifying the ATMVP candidate, coding the current block of video data, wherein coding the current block comprises coding sub-blocks of the current block using the respective motion information of the sub-blocks of the block identified by the ATMVP candidate. Appeal 2020-002361 Application 15/005,564 4 The Examiner’s Rejection Claims 1–3, 15–17, 30–32, and 44–46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by K. McCann et al., High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) Encoder Description v 16 (HM16), Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, 1–8 (June/July 2014) (“McCann”). Final Act. 2–3. ANALYSIS2 We begin our analysis with a brief review of McCann. McCann “serves as a source of general tutorial information on HEVC Version 1 and range extensions and also provides an encoder-side description of the HM-16 software.” McCann, Abstract. In relevant part, McCann describes an inter-prediction mode wherein “[e]ach inter-predicted PU has a set of motion parameters consisting of one or two motion vectors and reference picture indices and reference picture list usage index to be used for inter-predicted sample generation and signalled [sic] in an explicit or implicit manner.” McCann § 4.4.1. In merge mode, motion parameters for the current PU are obtained from neighbor PUs, “including spatial and temporal candidates.” McCann ¶ 4.4.1. Regarding the derivation of merge candidates, McCann describes two types of merge candidates (in merge mode): spatial merge candidates and temporal merge candidates. McCann § 4.4.1.1. “For spatial merge candidate derivation, a maximum of four 2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed October 28, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed February 3, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed December 4, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the Final Office Action, mailed May 13, 2019 (“Final Act.”), from which this Appeal is taken. Appeal 2020-002361 Application 15/005,564 5 merge candidates are selected among candidates that are located in five different positions.” McCann § 4.4.1.1; see also McCann § 4.4.1.2, Fig. 4-12. “For temporal merge candidate derivation, a maximum of one merge candidate is selected among two candidates.” McCann § 4.4.1.1. In deriving a temporal merge candidate, McCann describes “a scaled motion vector is derived based on co-located PU belonging to the picture which has the smallest POC [(picture order count)] difference with current picture within the given reference picture list.” McCann § 4.4.1.3. Figure 4-15 is illustrative and is reproduced below: Figure 4-15 of McCann illustrates candidate positions for temporal merge candidates, C3 and H. McCann § 4.4.1.3. McCann discloses the position of co-located PU is selected between two candidate positions, C3 and H, as shown in Figure 4-15. McCann § 4.4.1.3. McCann describes that if PU at position H is not available (or is intra-coded or outside the current coding tree unit), position C3 is used; otherwise position H is used to derive the temporal merge candidate. McCann § 4.4.1.3. Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that McCann discloses an ATMVP candidate indicates that the current block is to be predicted using a block identified by the ATMVP candidate that is split into a plurality of sub- blocks, each of the plurality of sub-blocks having a respective set of motion information, as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7–11; Reply Br. 3. More Appeal 2020-002361 Application 15/005,564 6 particularly, Appellant asserts that McCann, as relied on by the Examiner, fails to describe an ATMVP candidate that identifies a block, split into a plurality of sub-blocks, that is used to predict a current block of video data. Appeal Br. 9–11 (citing McCann § 4.4.1.3, Fig. 4-15); Reply Br. 3–4. Instead, Appellant argues, inter alia, that the sub-blocks (C0 and C3) of McCann, as identified by the Examiner (see Final Act. 2–3), are not sub- blocks of a block identified by an ATMVP candidate, each sub-block having a respective set of motion information, but are identified as sub-blocks within the current PU—i.e., the current block being coded. Appeal Br. 9– 11. Moreover, Appellant asserts that McCann does not disclose that either C0 or C3 contain motion information. Appeal Br. 10. In response, the Examiner finds McCann illustrates the concept of predicting a current block using a block identified by a candidate that is split into a plurality of sub-blocks. Ans. 3 (citing McCann, Figs. 4-12, 4-13, 4-15). More particularly, the Examiner finds McCann shows a similar concept to Appellant’s split sub-blocks (comparing McCann’s illustration of sub-blocks A1, A0, B1, C3, H, etc. from Figures 4-12 and 4-15 to Appellant’s Figures 4 and 5(a)). Ans. 3. As Appellant notes (Reply Br. 5), Figures 4 and 5(a) from the Specification do not illustrate a block that is split into sub-blocks as claimed. Instead, those figures illustrate the positions of spatially and temporally neighboring candidates. See Spec. ¶¶ 138–141. Similarly, we find McCann’s blocks identified as A0, A1, B0, B1, and B2 are spatial merge candidates to a current PU. See McCann § 4.4.1.2. Further, blocks C3 and H, as illustrated in Figure 4-15 of McCann, are possible locations of a co- located PU. See McCann § 4.4.1.3. The Examiner has not identified Appeal 2020-002361 Application 15/005,564 7 sufficient evidence or set forth persuasive technical reasoning that C3 or H are sub-blocks, having respective motion information, identified by an ATMVP candidate, as recited in claim 1. For the reasons discussed supra, we are persuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 15, 30, and 44, which recite limitations of commensurate scope. In addition, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 16, 17, 31, 32, 45, and 46, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3, 15–17, 30– 32, and 44–46 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 15–17, 30–32, 44– 46 102 McCann 1–3, 15– 17, 30– 32, 44–46 REVERSED