QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 2, 2022

2020006173 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2022)

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. 14/309,867 06/19/2014 Woo-Shik Kim 1212-610US01/133589 4781 15150 7590 02/02/2022 Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A. 1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100 Woodbury, MN 55125 EXAMINER AN, SHAWN S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2022 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 WOO-SHIK KIM, JOEL SOLE ROJALS, and MARTA KARCZEWICZ Appeal 2020-006173 Application 14/309,867 Technology Center 2400 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ERIC B. CHEN, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 26, 52, 53, 78, 79, 105, and 106 1 We refer to the Specification, filed June 19, 2014 (“Spec.”); Non-Final Office Action, mailed November 15, 2019 (“Non-Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed April 9, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed July 1, 2020 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief, filed August 26, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). 2 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as QUALCOMM Incorporated. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-006173 Application 14/309,867 2 representing all pending claims. See Non-Final Act. 1.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s Specification summarizes the disclosure as describing “techniques related to a video coder that is configured to transform between samples of a block of video data having a first color space to a block of samples of [video data] having a second color space.” Spec. ¶ 6. Claim 1, reproduced below with bracketed claim element labels added, is illustrative: 1. A method of encoding video data, the method comprising: [(i)] determining a color transform from among a plurality of color transforms based on a cost determined for each of the plurality of color transforms, the plurality of color transforms including a YCgCo color transform and a YCgCo-R color transform, [(ii)] wherein the YCgCo-R color transform comprises: Co= R - B; t=B+[Co/2]; Cg= G - t; Y = t + [Cg/2]; [(iii)] making a determination, based on the determined cost, to apply the YCgCo color transform to a first block of pixel domain residual data of a picture of video data; [(iv)] in response to the determination to apply the YCgCo color transform, transforming, using the YCgCo color transform, the first block of pixel domain residual data to produce a second block of pixel domain residual data, wherein the first block corresponds to a first color space and the second block corresponds to a second color space; 3 The Non-Final Action mistakenly indicates the disposition of all pending claims as objected to (“box 8”) instead of as rejected (“box 7”) as indicated in the narrative portion of the Action. See Non-Final Act. 3-10; Ans. 3-16. Appeal 2020-006173 Application 14/309,867 3 [(v)] signaling data including a first syntax element that indicates whether or not the YCgCo color transform has been applied to the first block, wherein a first value of the first syntax element indicates that the YCgCo color transform has been applied, and wherein a second value of the first syntax element indicates that the YCgCo color transform has not been applied; [(vi)] encoding the second block of pixel domain residual data; [(vii)] making a determination, based on the determined cost, to apply the YCgCo-R color transform to a third block of pixel domain residual data of the picture of video data; [(viii)] in response to the determination to apply the YCgCo-R color transform, transforming, using the YCgCo-R color transform, the third block of pixel domain residual data to produce a fourth block of pixel domain residual data, wherein the third block corresponds to a third color space and the fourth block corresponds to a fourth color space; [(ix)] signaling data including a second syntax element that indicates whether or not the YCgCo-R color transform has been applied to the third block, wherein a first value of the second syntax element indicates that the YCgCo-R color transform has been applied, and wherein a second value of the second syntax element indicates that the YCgCo-R color transform has not been applied; and [(x)] encoding the fourth block of pixel domain residual data. Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). Appeal 2020-006173 Application 14/309,867 4 REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references: Name Reference Date Sun US 2005/0259730 A1 Nov. 24, 2005 Gordon et al. (“Gordon”) US 7,894,530 B2 Feb. 22, 2011 Tourapis US 2014/0355689 A1 Dec. 4, 2014 Detlev Marpe et al., Macroblock-adaptive residual color space transformsfor 4:4:4 video coding, Image Processing, 2006 IEEE International Conference on IEEE 2006, XP031049347, pp. 3157-3160 (2006) (“Marpe”). REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Sun, Marpe, and Gordon. Non- Final Act. 3-7. The Examiner rejects claims 26, 78, 79, 105, and 106 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings Sun, Tourapis, and Gordon. Id. at 7-10. The Examiner rejects claim 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings Sun, Marpe, Gordon, and Tourapis. Id. at 10. STANDARD OF REVIEW 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). Appeal 2020-006173 Application 14/309,867 5 OPINION We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). Except to the extent inconsistent with our analysis herein, we adopt as our own the findings set forth by the Examiner in (1) the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief, and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. Analysis The Examiner finds Sun’s disclosure of the lossy and lossless/ reversible compression of video data using YCoCg and YCoCg-R transforms, respectively, teaches portions of claim 1’s elements (i) through (iv), (vi), (viii), and (x). Non-Final Act. 3-4 (citing Sun ¶¶ 8-9, 11, 28-32, 41). Finding Sun does not explicitly disclose the remaining elements of claim 1 (id. at 4), the Examiner finds Marpe’s publication describing extending “block-based video-coding for 4:4:4 color sampling . . . by an adaptive color space transform” using an encoder that “switch[es] between several given color space representations in order to optimize rate-distortion performance” (Marpe, Abstract) teaches further aspects of claim 1. Id. at 4- 5. Among other things, the Examiner finds Marpe’s macro-block-adaptive rate/distortion optimized selection process teaches (a) making a determination to apply the YCgCo color transform based on a determined cost as recited by claim 1’s element (iii) and (b) applying the transform as recited by element (iv). Id. (citing Marpe §§ 2, 3.1, and 3.5). The Examiner Appeal 2020-006173 Application 14/309,867 6 relies on Gordon’s disclosure of the dynamic selection of video decoder transform size based on signal content that includes a syntax element indicating that a selected color transform has been applied for teaching the data signaling of claim 1’s elements (v) and (ix). Id. at 5-6 (citing Gordon 11:65-12:51; Fig. 5). The Examiner further provides reasoning for combing the teachings of Sun, Marpe, and Gordon. Id. at 6-7. Appellant contends the rejection is improper. Appeal Br. 14-16. In particular, Appellant contends: 1. “Sun teaches away from using both YCgCo and YCgCo-R color transforms on the same video data” (id. at 15-16); and 2. “Marpe include[s] transforms for multiple color spaces, but not multiple color transforms for a single color space [as required by claim 1]” (id. at 16). We address these allegations of error as follows. 1. “Sun teaches away from using both YCgCo and YCgCo-R color transforms on the same video data” According to Appellant, the “claimed techniques include the application of both YCgCo and YCgCo-R color transforms to different blocks of the same picture.” Appeal Br. 15. Appellant argues, in contrast, “Sun describes the sole use of a single, reversible YCgCo-R color transform.” Id. Moreover, Appellant argues Sun teaches away from using the claimed YCgCo color transform in favor of the reversible YCgCo-R transform. Id. In support of the teaching away argument, Appellant directs attention to Sun’s disclosure at paragraph 11 describing that, in “the YCoCg color conversion process, . . . the RGB values are not exactly recoverable due to the limitations of integer binary arithmetic. As such, the described Appeal 2020-006173 Application 14/309,867 7 YCoCg color transform is not a reversible transform, and the YCoCg transform described is therefore not suitable for lossless coding.” Id. (citing Sun ¶ 11, emphasis omitted). In response to Appellant’s first contention, the Examiner determines claim[] 1 . . . do[es] not specifically recite describing the use of both a YCgCo color transform and a YCgCo-R color transform, but rather recites determining/describing a color transform (means using either a YCgCo color transform or a YCgCo-R color transform) based/depending on the determined cost for a respective block, wherein the plurality of color transforms includes a YCgCo color transform and a YCgCo-R color transform. In other words, the claims 1 and 52 merely lists/includes a YCgCo color transform and a YCgCo-R color transform in which to choose/select from based/depending on the determined cost for a respective block (for example, similar to listing menu items as in a restaurant, wherein a customer selects or determines an item from the menu items). Ans. 11 (formatting altered). Appellant replies, as follows: Appellant’s claimed techniques for coding video data are not in any way analogous to the selection of a “menu item.” Furthermore, despite the contentions in the Examiner’s Answer, Appellant’s claims do in fact specifically recite the use of both a YCgCo color transform and a YCgCo-R color transform in a single picture. While the particular color transform used for a particular block in the picture may be determined based on a cost, Appellant’s claims clearly recite that the YCgCo transform is used for a first block of the picture and that the YCgCo-R color transform is used for another block of the picture. Reply Br. 5. Appellant’s claim interpretation is persuasive of Examiner error. However, because we nonetheless find that Sun teaches both YCgCo and Appeal 2020-006173 Application 14/309,867 8 YCgCo-R transforms and Marpe teaches or suggests using color transforms to encode different macroblocks of a picture based on a related cost function, the error is not dispositive, i.e., there is no reversible error. That is, we agree with Appellant that claim 1 requires applying both a YCgCo color transform and a YCgCo-R color transform to respective first and third blocks of pixel domains of a picture of video data. In particular, claim 1’s element (iii) recites “making a determination, based on the determined cost, to apply the YCgCo color transform to a first block of pixel domain residual data of a picture of video data” with element (vii) reciting that a similar determination is made to apply the YCgCo-R color transform to a third block of pixel domain residual data of the picture of video data. These claim elements do not include conditional language as might have been indicated by phraseology such as “making a determination whether to apply.” Instead, we interpret claim 1’s elements (iii) and (vii) to require satisfaction of the stated criteria, i.e, the determined cost, such that an affirmative determination outcome is required, i.e., a determination to apply the recited color transform. Thus, the Examiner errs in concluding “claims 1 and 52 do not specifically recite describing the use of both a YCgCo color transform and a YCgCo-R color transform, but rather recite[] determining/describing a color transform (means using either a YCgCo color transform or a YCgCo-R color transform).” Ans. 11. Nonetheless, Appellant’s argument that “Sun teaches away from using both YCgCo and YCgCo-R color transforms on the same video data” (Appeal Br. 15) is unpersuasive of Examiner error. To teach away, the prior art must “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Appeal 2020-006173 Application 14/309,867 9 Cri. 2004). Teaching an alternative method does not teach away from the use of a claimed method. See In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 438 (CCPA 1965); see also Ex parte Shuping, No. 2008-0394, 2008 WL 336222, at *2 (BPAI 2008) (unpublished) (“[T]eaching a way is not teaching away.”) (Citation omitted). Notably, a mere description of an embodiment as somewhat inferior or not preferred does not constitute a teaching away. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1199-1200; In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Sun merely discloses that the YCoCg transform is not suitable for lossless coding and, instead, suggests using Mavar’s YCoCg-R reversible color-conversion process. Sun ¶¶ 11, 28. At most, as characterized by Appellant, “Sun . . . states that YCgCo transforms are disfavored because they are not reversible.” Appeal Br. 15 (emphasis added). A disfavored implementation for a particular embodiment does not constitute a teaching away. Furthermore, claim 1 does not require a reversible color-conversion process so that the preference attributable by Sun to the YCoCg-R transform because it is reversible is inapplicable to the claimed invention. Thus, Appellant’s teaching away argument also is not commensurate in scope with claim 1. Moreover still, Sun’s described preference for YCoCg-R is based on “limitations of integer binary arithmetic.” Sun ¶ 11. However, Marpe discloses the reversibility problem can be addressed by increasing the precision in which the color space is represented: [T]he [YCoCg] transform is reversible in the sense that each original RGB triple can be exactly recovered from the corresponding YCoCg triple if the color difference components Co and Cg are represented with one additional bit accuracy relative to the bit depth used for representing RGB, and if furthermore, no information loss in any subsequent coding step is assumed. Appeal 2020-006173 Application 14/309,867 10 Marpe § 2. Thus, instead of discouraging use of the YCoCg transform as a reversible lossless coding process, Marpe describes an advantage in simplicity of its implementation: “both the forward and inverse RGB-to- YCoCg transform can be implemented with relatively low complexity.” Id. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above we are unpersuaded the prior art criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution claimed so as to constitute a teaching away. 2. “Marpe include[s] transforms for multiple color spaces, but not multiple color transforms for a single color space [as required by claim 1]” Appellant contends the rejection is improper, arguing the combination of Sun, Marpe and Gordon fails to “describe the use of both a YCgCo color transform and a YCgCo-R color transform in the same picture.” Appeal Br. 16. According to Appellant, Sun describes only the use of the YCgCo-R color transform. Id. Appellant further argues “[t]he techniques of Marpe include transforms for multiple color spaces, but not multiple color transforms for a single color space. That is, Marpe does not teach or suggest using two different YCgCo transforms (i.e., the YCgCo color transform and the YCgCo-R color transform).” Id. Appellant’s first argument is unpersuasive because it fails to address Marpe’s disclosure of a macroblock-adaptive residual color transform (MBARCT) that selects between multiple (i.e., three) color space representations per macroblock for teaching the use of multiple color transforms. See Ans. 12. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d Appeal 2020-006173 Application 14/309,867 11 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Appellant’s second argument is unpersuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with claim 1, which does not require both the YCgCo and YCgCo color transforms result in converted blocks corresponding to the same color space. Claim 1’s element (iv) recites applying the YCgCo color transform, transforming, using the YCgCo color transform, the first block of pixel domain residual data to produce a second block of pixel domain residual data, wherein the first block corresponds to a first color space and the second block corresponds to a second color space. Claim 1’s element (viii) recites applying the YCgCo-R color transform, transforming, using the YCgCo-R color transform, the third block of pixel domain residual data to produce a fourth block of pixel domain residual data, wherein the third block corresponds to a third color space and the fourth block corresponds to a fourth color space. There is no requirement that the second color space produced by the YCgCo transform be the same as the fourth color space produced by the YCgCo-R transform as argued by Appellant is lacking in Marpe. Furthermore, Appellant provides no persuasive evidence that the YCgCo and YCgCo-R transforms necessarily produce blocks of pixels in the same color space.4 To the contrary, Appellant’s Specification describes, 4 It is well settled that mere attorney’s arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Attorney argument is not evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Nor can such argument take the place of evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977). Appeal 2020-006173 Application 14/309,867 12 rather than producing a block of pixels in the YCgCo color space, “apply[ing] a YCgCo-R transform to a block having an RGB color space . . . produce[s] a block having a YCgCo-R color space.” Spec. ¶ 151. Thus, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument distinguishing claim 1 on the basis of the use of multiple transforms for single (i.e., YCgCo) color space. For the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s contentions are unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error in connection with the rejection of claim 1 or in the rejection of claim 52 which is argued on the basis of claim 1. Appeal Br. 16. Appellant’s arguments in connection with claim 26 merely summarize those presented in connection with claim 1 and are unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed above. See id. at 16-18. To the extent Appellant further contends “Tourapis fails to teach or suggest the use of a plurality of color transforms that includes ‘an inverse YCgCo color transform and an inverse YCgCo-R color transform’ that are used in the same picture” (id. at 18), such naked assertions of error are facially insufficient. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“A statement [that] merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”). Claims 53, 78, 79, 105, and 106 are not argued separately with particularity. See id. at 16, 18. Appeal 2020-006173 Application 14/309,867 13 Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 1, 26, 52, 53, 78, 79, 105, and 106 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of: i. claims 1 and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Sun, Marpe, and Gordon; ii. claims 26, 78, 79, 105, and 106 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings Sun, Tourapis, and Gordon; and iii. claim 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings Sun, Marpe, Gordon, and Tourapis. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 52 103 Sun, Marpe, Gordon 1, 52 26, 78, 79, 105, 106 103 Sun, Tourapis, Gordon 26, 78, 79, 105, 106 53 103 Sun, Marpe, Gordon, Tourapis. 53 Overall Outcome 1, 26, 52, 53, 78, 79, 105, 106 Appeal 2020-006173 Application 14/309,867 14 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED