QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 24, 2021

2020005678 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 24, 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. 14/657,617 03/13/2015 Fnu HENDRY 1414-713US01/144064U1 2876 15150 7590 12/24/2021 Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A. 1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100 Woodbury, MN 55125 EXAMINER NOH, JAE NAM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2481 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/24/2021 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 FNU HENDRY, YE-KUI WANG, ADARSH KRISHNAN RAMASUBRAMONIAN, and VADIM SEREGIN ___________________ Appeal 2020-005678 Application 14/657,617 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JOHN A. EVANS, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1, 4–10, 13–19, 22–24, 27–36, all pending claims. 1 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed March 6, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Appellant’s Reply Brief filed July 30, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed June 1, 2020 (“Ans.”); the Final Office Action mailed July 26, 2019 (“Final Act.”), and the Specification filed March 13, 2015 (“Spec.”). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). The Appeal Brief identifies Qualcomm Appeal 2020-005678 Application 14/657,617 2 Appeal Br. 13–21 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. STATEMENT OF THE CASE INVENTION. The claims relate to an apparatus for coding video information. See Spec., Abstr. Claims 1, 10, 19, and 24 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of claim 1, which is reproduced below with some formatting added: 1. An apparatus for coding video information, comprising: a memory for storing video information associated with a plurality of layers; and a hardware processor operationally coupled to the memory and configured to: determine whether a first syntax element is present in a bitstream of the video information, the first syntax element associated with a sequence parameter set (SPS) and a first flag indicative of whether a temporal identifier (ID) of a reference picture for pictures that refer to the SPS can be nested; and in response to determining that the first syntax element is not present in the bitstream: obtain a second syntax element indicative of a maximum number of temporal sub-layers in a layer of the plurality of layers, determine that a value of the second syntax element is less than or equal to 0, Incorporated of San Diego, California, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-005678 Application 14/657,617 3 determine that a value of a second flag associated with a video parameter set (VPS) in the bitstream is equal to 0, and in response to the determination that the value of the second syntax element is less than or equal to 0, set the value of the first flag equal to 1. Prior Art Name3 Reference Date Terada US 2013/0343463 A1 Dec. 26, 2013 Kang US 2016/0255350 A1 Sept. 1, 2016 REJECTIONS4 AT ISSUE 1. Claims 1, 4–10, 13–19, 22–24 and 27–29, 31, and 33–36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Kang. Final Act. 6–15. 2. Claims 30 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kang and Terada. Final Act. 15–18. ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the 3 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named inventor/author only. 4 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2020-005678 Application 14/657,617 4 alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be forfeit. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections and add the following primarily for emphasis. CLAIMS 1, 4–10, 13–19, 22–24 AND 27–29, 31, AND 33–36: ANTICIPATION BY KANG. According to Appellant’s understanding, the Examiner: interpret[s] the first flag of claim 1 as [Kang’s] “sps_temporal_id_nesting_flag,” the second flag of claim 1 as [Kang’s] “vps_temporal_id_nesting_flag,” and the second syntax element of claim 1 as [Kang’s] “sps_max_sub_layers_minusl” syntax element. Appeal Br. 8. Taking these interpretations arguendo, Appellant argues claim 1 provides when the first flag (e.g., sps_temporal_id_nesting_flag) is not signaled, the second flag (e.g., vps_layer_temporal_id_nesting_flag) is equal to zero, and the second syntax element (e.g., sps_max_sub_layers_minusl) is equal to zero, the first flag (e.g., sps_temporal_id_nesting_flag) is set equal to 1. But, Appellant argues, Kang fails to disclose or suggest the subject matter of claim 1. Id. According to Appellant, the Examiner finds Kang discloses two rules. A first rule: “[t]he sps_temporal_id_nesting_flag represents whether the inter-screen prediction is additionally limited with respect to the coded video Appeal 2020-005678 Application 14/657,617 5 stream (CVS) referring to the corresponding SPS, when the sps- _max_sub_layers_minus 1 is larger than 0.” Appeal Br. 8 (citing Kang ¶ 206). A second rule: “[w]hen the value of the sps_temporal_id_nesting_flag is not signaled, it is inferred that the value of the sps_temporal_id_nesting_flag is the same as the value of vps_layer_temporal_id_nesting_flag[i] of the i-th layer in which the value of the nuh_layer_id is layer_id_in_nuh_[i].” Appeal Br. 9 (citing Kang ¶ 207). The Examiner finds “Kang does not expressly disclose which rule is general and which rule is the exception (takes precedence),” but that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to understand and apply the rules disclosed in setting the value of A.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds “the first rule (A=1 when C=0) is a clear and definite rule, i.e. a specific case of setting the value of A to 1 in case C = 0, whereas the second rule (A=B when A is missing) is general in nature directing the setting of A (SPS parameter) equal to B (VPS parameter) since they are the same parameter but different only in their granularity.” Id. Appellant contends the Examiner finds “the elements of claim 1 are not expressly described in Kang,” therefore, the Examiner must rely upon the inherent disclosure of Kang. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant argues The Examiner did not, and could not, demonstrate that the alleged characteristics of claim 1 necessarily flow from the teachings of Kang. Id. Appellant argues “Kang makes no mention whatsoever of what value [the] sps_temporal_id_nesting_flag should be set equal to when [the] sps_temporal_id_nesting_flag is not signaled, [the] vps_layer_temporal_id_nesting_flag[i] is equal to zero, and [the] sps_max_sub_layers_minusl is equal to zero.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant Appeal 2020-005678 Application 14/657,617 6 further argues, “the two ‘rules’ of Kang as identified in the Final Office Action are contradictory to one another in the situation where [the] sps_temporal_id_nesting_flag is not signaled, [the] vps_layer_temporal_id_nesting_flag[i] is equal to zero, and [the] sps_max_sub_layers_minusl is equal to zero.” Id. And therefore, Appellant argues: “[i]t would be just as likely, therefore, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have understood that sps_temporal_id_nesting_flag should be set equal to 0 as to 1 in this situation.” Id. The Examiner finds: “there is a conflict in the two rules of Kang for certain situation as discussed by the appellant.” Ans. 17. However, the Examiner finds: “one would have known that the first rule takes precedence since the first rule is a clear and direct rule for the setting of the A specific to a situation where C (‘sps max sub layers minusl’) = 0 whereas the second rule is a general or default rule in nature since the second rule states that the value of A (‘sps temporal id nesting flag’) is inferred from the value of B (‘vps temporal id nesting flag’), differing only in the granularity (sps vs. vps), in case the value of A needs to be derived (i.e. A is missing).” Id. Appellant contends the two rules, as found by the Examiner, are contradictory where the sps_temporal_id_nesting_flag is not signaled, but where the sps_max_sub_layers_minusl and the vps_layer_temporal_id_nesting_flag[i] are both equal to zero. Reply Br. 4. Appellant argues in this situation, under Rule 1, sps_temporal_id_nesting_flag would be set to 1, whereas in this same situation and but following Rule 2, the sps_temporal_id_nesting_flag would be set to 0. Id. Appellant argues the Examiner has provided no basis in fact Appeal 2020-005678 Application 14/657,617 7 and/or technical reasoning to demonstrate why a person of skill in the art would prefer one rule over the other. Id. As cited by the Examiner (see Ans. 4, restating Final Act. 3, 6–7) Kang discloses: When the sps_max_sub_layers_minusl is 0, the value of the sps_temporal_id_nesting_flag needs to be 1. When the value of the sps_temporal_id_nesting_flag is not signaled, it is inferred that the value of the sps_temporal_id_nesting_flag is the same as the value of vps_layer_temporal_id_nesting_flag[i]. Kang ¶ 207 (cited by the Examiner) (emphasis added). The Examiner finds the two “rules” may conflict. Ans. 16 (“[g]iven that there is a conflict in the two rules of Kang for certain situation as discussed by the appellant”). The Examiner finds “Kang does not expressly disclose which rule is general and which rule is the exception (takes precedence).” Final Act. 3. Thus, the Examiner relies on a theory of inherency to prefer one conflicting rule over another. However, the Examiner has not “provide[d] a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination” that a person of skill in the art would know to favor a rule supported by “needs to be” over a rule supported by “is inferred” (or vice versa). “In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.” MPEP 2112(IV). In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4–10,5 13–19, 22–24, 27–29, 31, and 33–36. 5 We note that the Examiner does not make separate findings with respect to independent claim 10. See Final Act. 11; Ans. 8. In the event of further Appeal 2020-005678 Application 14/657,617 8 CLAIMS 30 AND 32: OBVIOUSNESS OVER KANG AND TERADA. Appellant contends Terada fails to overcome the deficiencies of Kang and was not cited as such. Appeal Br. 12. The Examiner does not apply Terada to teach the disputed limitation. Ans. 13. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 30 and 32. DECISION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4–10, 13–19, 22– 24, 27–29, 31, 33–36 102(a)(2) Kang 1, 4–10, 13–19, 22–24, 27–29, 31, 33–36 30, 32 103 Kang, Terada 30, 32 prosecution we leave it to the Examiner to determine whether the method of claim 10 recites conditional steps that need not be performed. See e.g., Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792, at *3–6 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (concluding conditional steps employed in a method claim need not be found in the prior art if, under the broadest reasonable construction, the method need not invoke the steps). Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02 (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018). In the event of further prosecution, we suggest the Examiner review the method of Claim 10 for soundness under Hytera Commc’ns Co. Ltd. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., 841 F. App’x 210 (2021). Appeal 2020-005678 Application 14/657,617 9 Overall outcome 1, 4–10, 13–19, 22–24, 27–36 REVERSED