QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 2, 2021

2020005475 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 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. 15/188,766 06/21/2016 Amir Said 1414-126US01/154215 7584 15150 7590 12/02/2021 Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A. 1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100 Woodbury, MN 55125 EXAMINER TARKO, ASMAMAW G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2482 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/02/2021 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): 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 AMIR SAID, XIN ZHAO, WEI-JUNG CHIEN, JIANLE CHEN, and MARTA KARCZEWICZ Appeal 2020-005475 Application 15/188,766 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, 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, 8–12, 15–19, and 22–27. Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, and 21 are objected to by the Examiner and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. 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) (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Qualcomm Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-005475 Application 15/188,766 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to video intra prediction using hybrid recursive filters for parallel computation. Title. An indication of an intra-prediction mode that identifies an initial predictive block; filtering, in parallel, samples in a current line of a plurality of lines of the initial predictive block based on filtered values of samples in a preceding line of the plurality of lines and unfiltered values of samples in the current line to generate filtered values for samples for the current line; and reconstructing, using intra prediction, values of samples of the current block based on the filtered values of the samples of the current initial predictive block and residual data for the current block that represents a difference between the filtered values of the samples of the current initial predictive block and the values of samples of the current block. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of decoding video data, the method comprising: obtaining, from a coded video bitstream and for a current block of the video data, an indication of an intra-prediction mode that identifies an initial predictive block; filtering, in parallel, samples in a current line of a plurality of lines of the initial predictive block based on filtered values of samples in a preceding line of the plurality of lines of the initial predictive block and unfiltered values of samples in the current line to generate filtered values for samples for the current line of the initial predictive block, wherein the plurality of lines comprises either a plurality of rows or a plurality of columns of the video data, and wherein each of the filtered samples is filtered in parallel based on filtered values of a plurality of samples in the preceding line of the plurality of lines of the initial predictive block and unfiltered values of a plurality of samples in the current line; and Appeal 2020-005475 Application 15/188,766 3 reconstructing, using intra prediction, values of samples of the current block based on the filtered values of the samples of the current initial predictive block and residual data for the current block that represents a difference between the filtered values of the samples of the current initial predictive block and the values of samples of the current block. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Kumar et al. US 9,154,787 B2 Oct. 6, 2015 Esenlik et al. US 2012/0230423 A1 Sept. 13, 2012 Hui Yong Kim et al. Description of video coding technology proposal by ETRI, Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and 1S0/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 1st Meeting: Dresden, DE, Document: JCTVC-A127 23 April, 2010 (Date saved) REJECTIONS Claims 1–5, 8–12, 15–19, 22, 23, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Esenlik. Claims 24–26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Esenlik as applied to claim 15 above, and in view of Kumar. Appeal 2020-005475 Application 15/188,766 4 OPINION 35 U.S.C. § 103 availability of the reference as prior art Appellant contends that Kim is not proper prior art because Kim was not publicly accessible prior to the priority date of Appellant’s application, citing the recent Infobridge case. See Appeal Br. 7–9 (citing Samsung Electronics Co. v. Infobridge Pte. Ltd., 929 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). We disagree with Appellant that Kim is not proper prior art in view of Infobridge. See Appeal Br. 7–9. Appellant contends the instant rejection mirrors the facts in Infobridge. See Appeal Br. 7–9. More specifically, Appellant contends “the presence of JCTVC-A127 [Kim] on the JCT-VC website does not establish sufficient public availability because, in the language of Infobridge, ‘a skilled artisan would not have been able to locate [JCTVC-A127] on the JCT-VC website-even assuming the JCT-VC website itself was accessible—by exercising reasonable diligence.’” Appeal Br. 9 (quoting Infobridge, 929 F.3d at 1371). The Examiner has cited to a number of additional publications which also cite to the JCTVC-A127. Ans. 12–13. The Examiner also cites to a summary of the results of the first JCT-VC meeting in Dresden which was published on Tuesday, April 27, 2010, evidencing that the availability of the reference and evidencing where to locate information on the subject (https://multimediacommunication.blogspot.com/ 2010/04/summary-of- results-of-first-jct-vc.html). Ans. 13. The Kim reference also is cited in the International Journal of computer applications (published in 2012 with a reference to the Kim reference in reference number 26 to JCTVC-A127 https://www.ijcaonline.org/archives/volume59/number 15/9621-4265). Ans. 13. Appeal 2020-005475 Application 15/188,766 5 In the Reply Brief, Appellant does not present any commentary or response to the Examiner’s additional factual findings and provides no support of the unavailability of the reference. As a result, we find Appellant’s general argument to be unavailing in light of the additional evidence provided by the Examiner. Responsive to Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 6–9), the Examiner provides evidence to show that Kim was published and publicly available on the priority date of June 22, 2015, including several patent applications citing JCT-VC documents as prior art, a published Internet web page citing the Kim reference, and Appellant’s own information disclosure statement (“IDS”). See Ans. 12–13. Although prior art may be created by admissions of Appellant (see, e.g., In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 300 (CCPA 1982)), mere inclusion of a reference on an IDS is not an admission by the applicant that a reference qualifies as prior art. See Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.97(h) (“The filing of an information disclosure statement shall not be construed to be an admission that the information cited in the statement is, or is considered to be, material to patentability as defined in § 1.56(b).”). Whether a reference qualifies as printed publication is a legal conclusion based on underlying factual findings. See M&K Holdings, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 985 F.3d 1376, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Such a determination involves a case-by-case inquiry as to whether the putative prior art document was publicly accessible. See In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “A reference will be considered publicly accessible if it was ‘disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art Appeal 2020-005475 Application 15/188,766 6 exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.’” Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008)); see also Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 772 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (public accessibility “has been called the touch- stone” in determining whether a reference qualifies as a printed publication). Infobridge related to an appeal of a Board decision in which the Board determined a reference was not shown to be publicly available prior to a patent’s critical date and, therefore, could not be considered prior art. See Infobridge, 929 F.3d at 1365. In Infobridge, as it relates to the JCT-VC website, our reviewing court agreed with the Board that there was not sufficient evidence of record that “ordinarily skilled artisans ‘who were not part of JCT-VC’ would have known about or found the JCT-VC website.” Infobridge, 929 F.3d at 1371. The court also agreed with the Board that there was no evidence in the record that even if one were aware of the JCT- VC website, that one would be able to locate the reference by exercising reasonable diligence. See Infobridge, 929 F.3d at 1371–72. “[A] work is not publicly accessible if the only people who know how to find it are the ones who created it.” Infobridge, 929 F.3d at 1372. More recently, in M&K Holdings, our reviewing court upheld the Board’s decision that a different JCT-VC document was publicly accessible and, accordingly, was available as prior art. See M&K Holdings, 985 F.3d at 1377–78, 83. The court noted that the Board’s decision rested on several pieces of evidence, including expert testimony, findings of reference availability, distribution of documents via the JCT-VC website, and evidence of title-search functionality. See M&K Holdings, 985 F.3d at 1380–82. The court further noted the Board had found that “the JCT-VC Appeal 2020-005475 Application 15/188,766 7 organization as a whole was prominent among the community of skilled artisans” and that this “finding[s] [was] supported by substantial evidence.” M&K Holdings, 985 F.3d at 1381. The court also reiterated that although a hosting website is not required to have search functionality, “given the prominence of JCT-VC, the dispositive question is whether interested users of the JCT-VC website could have located [the references] through reasonable diligence.” M&K Holdings, 985 F.3d at 1381. The court determined that the Board’s decision—that the documents could have been located using reasonable diligence—was “supported by substantial evidence.” M&K Holdings, 985 F.3d at 1381. Here, like the record developed in M&K Holdings, the record includes evidence that ordinarily skilled artisan accessed the JCT-VC website and located the Kim reference and made further disclosures relating thereto and in reliance thereon. On its face, Kim indicates a date (April 19, 2010) on which the document was saved and an indication that it was discussed or presented at a meeting held in Dresden, DE over the period of April 15– April 23, 2010. See Kim 1. The Examiner provided additional persuasive evidence in the record to establish that the document was posted to the JCT- VC website at this time and that the document had been publicly available and disseminated prior to the priority date of the current application. The record is not like that in Infobridge, where there is no evidence of record that an interested party exercising reasonable diligence could have accessed Kim, and Appellant has provided no rebuttal to the Examiner’s additional factual findings. Consequently, we find that the Examiner did not err in finding the Kim reference was available prior art at the time of the invention, and we evaluate whether the combination of Kim and Esenlik renders obvious Appeal 2020-005475 Application 15/188,766 8 Appellant’s claim 1. Independent claims 6, 8, 15, and 27, and their dependent claims are rejected on the same basis (over the combination of Kim and Esenlik). Thus, we do not find error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1–5, 8–12, 15–19, and 22–27 for the reason that the Kim reference was not available as prior art. 35 U.S.C. § 103 merits of the rejection Over Kim in view of Esenlik In the obviousness rejection, the Examiner relies upon the disclosure of the Kim reference in Figures 1.4–1.6, which identifies the methodology of calculating and filtering the video data in parallel. Final Act. 5–6. The Examiner relies upon Figures 1.4–1.6 and Appellant argues that the Kim reference does not teach or suggest using samples in the proceeding line and unfiltered values in the current line. Appeal Br. 10–12. In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in maintaining that the Kim reference discloses the step of filtering as specifically recited in the language of independent claim 1. Reply Br. 5–6. Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s position that “when filtering H[b1] the filtering is done based on filtered value of H[a1] and unfiltered value of H[a2],” and that “V[a2] is filtered based on the filtered value V[a1], and also based on the unfiltered values of a2 and a3, which are unfiltered values in the current vertical line.” Reply Br. 5–6. Appellant argues that according to Kim reference in section 1.2.1, “two new tools were designed and used: Recursive Intra Prediction (RIP) and Adaptive Filtering Process (AFP),” where the Kim reference provides that “RIP extends the AVC’s directional prediction in a recursive fashion [and] applies only for 6 directional modes among the 9 modes by excluding Appeal 2020-005475 Application 15/188,766 9 vertical, horizontal, and DC modes. For a given a directional mode, RIP recursively calculates the predicted sample values along the directional lines.” Reply Br. 6. Appellant contends that according to the Kim reference, “the 3-taps of the filter for a current sample are: the above sample, the current sample, and the below sample,” and “filtering a sample in a row using AFP is dependent on filtered samples in the same row” rather than the preceding row. Reply Br. 6. Appellant further contends that the Kim reference further provides that “the value of V[a2] = (V[a1]+2*a2+a3+2)>>2. As such, the vertical filtered value of sample al (i.e., V[a1]) is calculated based in part on the vertical filtered value of sample al (i.e., V[a1]),” and “filtering a sample in a column using AFP is dependent on filtered samples in the same column” rather than the proceeding column. Reply Br. 6. Appellant argues that the AFP technique described by the Kim reference cannot be interpreted as filtering samples in a row in parallel, nor can the techniques of Kim be interpreted as filtering samples in a column in parallel, as claimed. Reply Br. 6. We agree with Appellant’s arguments and find that horizontal and vertical filtering calculations do not meet both parts of the claimed filtering step to be performed in parallel. As a result, Appellant’s has shown error in the Examiner’s factual findings and conclusion of obviousness of illustrative independent claim 1 based upon the proffered combination. Independent claims 6, 8, 15, and 27 contain similar claim limitations and the Examiner has relied upon the same prior art combination rejection. As a result Appellant has shown error in the Examiner’s factual findings supporting the Appeal 2020-005475 Application 15/188,766 10 conclusion of obviousness of these claims also and their respective dependent claims. The Examiner has not identified how the additional prior art reference to Kumar remedies the noted deficiency, and we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 24–26. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1–5, 8–12, 15–19, and 22–27. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 8–12, 15–19, 22, 23, 27 103 Kim, Esenlik 1–5, 8–12, 15–19, 22, 23, 27 24–26 103 Kim, Esenlik, Kumar 24–26 Overall Outcome 1–5, 8–12, 15–19, 22– 27 REVERSED