QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 23, 2022

2021001432 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 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. 14/469,477 08/26/2014 Liwei Guo 1212-663US01/134776 4833 15150 7590 03/23/2022 Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A. 1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100 Woodbury, MN 55125 EXAMINER KIR, ALBERT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2485 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/23/2022 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 LIWEI GUO, CHAO PANG, RAJAN LAXMAN JOSHI, JOEL SOLE ROJALS, and MARTA KARCZEWICZ Appeal 2021-001432 Application 14/469,477 Technology Center 2400 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOYCE CRAIG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, 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 rejecting claims 1-4, 6-9, 13, 15, 16, 18-21, 25-28, 30-33, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43-46, 50, 51, 53, 55, and 57. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “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 2021-001432 Application 14/469,477 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, the claims relate to “video coding, and more particularly to techniques for predicting video data.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1 is reproduced below and illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of decoding video data, the method comprising: decoding a single syntax element, in a sequence parameter set (SPS) that is applicable to a plurality of pictures, which explicitly indicates whether a residual differential pulse code modulation (RDPCM) process is enabled for one or more blocks in the plurality of pictures of the SPS including whether the RDPCM process is enabled for at least a first block in one of the plurality pictures predicted in an intra-block copying prediction mode and whether the RDPCM process is enabled for at least a second block in one of the plurality of pictures predicted in an inter-prediction mode; based on the syntax element indicating that the RDPCM process is enabled, generating a residual block for the first block based on a predicted residual block including reconstructing one or more residual values of the residual block by applying the RDPCM process to one or more predicted residual values of the predicted residual block, wherein applying the RDPCM process comprises obtaining, from an encoded bitstream, data that indicates an RDPCM mode for the residual block from a plurality of RDPCM modes and applying the indicated RDPCM mode to the predicted residual block; applying the intra-block copying prediction mode to predict the first block, wherein applying the intra-block copying prediction mode comprises locating a prediction block in a picture that includes the first block based on a displacement vector and a location of the first block in the picture that includes the first block; and generating the first block based on a combination of the residual block and the prediction block. Appeal Br. 53 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-001432 Application 14/469,477 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is: Name Reference Date Lee et al. (“Lee”) US 2008/0310503 A1 Dec. 18, 2008 Tabatabai et al. (“Tabatabai”) US 2015/0049813 A1 Feb. 19, 2015 Sasai et al. (“Sasai”) US 2016/0080748 A1 Mar. 17, 2016 David Flynn et al. (“Flynn”) “High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) Range Extensions text specification: Draft 4,” Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT- VC) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 Apr. 18-26, 2013 Matteo Naccari et al. (“Naccari”) “RCE2: Experimental results for Test C.1,” Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT- VC) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 July 25-Aug. 2, 2013 REJECTIONS2 Claims 1-4, 6-9, 13, 15, 16, 18-21, 25-28, 30-33, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43- 46, 51, 53, 55, and 57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Flynn, Naccari, Tabatabai, and Lee. Final Act. 13-18. Claim 50 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Naccari, Lee, Tabatabai, and Sasai. Final Act. 13. 2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-9, 13, 15, 16, 18-21, 25-28, 30-33, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43-46, 51, 53, 55, and 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Naccari, Lee, Tabatabai, and Sasai. Ans. 3. Appeal 2021-001432 Application 14/469,477 4 ANALYSIS Obviousness over Flynn, Naccari, Tabatabai, and Lee We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6-9, 13, 15, 16, 18-21, 25-28, 30-33, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43-46, 51, 53, 55, and 57 over Flynn, Naccari, Tabatabai, and Lee (Final Act. 13-18) in light of Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 34-51) that the Examiner has erred, as well as the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the Answer (Ans. 4-9) and Appellant’s reply in the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 5-8). We agree with Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-4, 6-9, 13, 15, 16, 18-21, 25-28, 30-33, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43-46, 51, 53, 55, and 57 because the Examiner has not shown sufficiently that the combination of Flynn, Naccari, Tabatabai, and Lee teaches or suggests all of the recited elements. See Appeal Br. 36-41. At the outset, we note that Appellant argues Flynn and Naccari were not publicly available as of the earliest effective filing date of the present application, and therefore do not qualify as prior art. See Appeal Br. 13-16, 34-36. We need not decide this issue because, even if Flynn and Naccari qualify as prior art, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Flynn, Naccari, Tabatabai, and Lee teaches decoding a single syntax element, in a sequence parameter set (SPS) that is applicable to a plurality of pictures, which explicitly indicates whether a residual differential pulse code modulation (RDPCM) process is enabled for one or more blocks in the plurality of pictures of the SPS including whether the RDPCM process is enabled for at least a first block in one of the plurality pictures predicted in an intra-block copying prediction mode and whether the RDPCM process is enabled for at least a Appeal 2021-001432 Application 14/469,477 5 second block in one of the plurality of pictures predicted in an inter-prediction mode (emphasis added) as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 25, 51, and 55. See Appeal Br. 36-51; Reply Br. 5-8. Although independent claims 13, 38, 53, and 57 relate to encoding, rather than decoding, these claims similarly recite “a single syntax element” that indicates whether an RDPCM process is enabled for first and second blocks predicted in different respective prediction modes. Accordingly, we also agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Flynn, Naccari, Tabatabai, and Lee teaches the “single syntax element” limitation recited in claims 13, 38, 53, and 57. The Examiner finds Flynn’s disclosure of an “sps_extension1_flag” teaches the “single syntax element” recited in the claims. Final Act. 14 (citing Flynn, 33, 70); Ans. 7-8. In particular, the Examiner finds that “[i]n the event that sps_extension_flag is equal to 1, there is a possibility that RDPCM is enabled for a first block in intra copying mode, and RDPCM is enabled for a second block in inter prediction mode.” Ans. 8. Here, we find the Examiner erred in relying on Flynn’s “sps_extension1_flag” for indicating the mere possibility that RDPCM could be enabled for first and second blocks predicted in different respective prediction modes. Claim 1, as well as the other independent claims, require that the “single syntax element . . . explicitly indicates” whether RDPCM is enabled for a block predicted in the “intra-block copying prediction mode” and another block predicted in the “inter-prediction mode.” Flynn, on the other hand, describes the “sps_extension1_flag” as merely indicating, when set to “1,” that the “residual_dpcm_intra_enabled_flag” and “residual_dpcm_inter_enabled_flag” “are present in the SPS RBSP [raw Appeal 2021-001432 Application 14/469,477 6 byte sequence payload] syntax structure.” Flynn, 70. In other words, Flynn’s sps_extension1_flag “provides no indication of the value of” the residual_dpcm_intra_enabled_flag and residual_dpcm_inter_enabled_flag. Reply Br. 7. Rather, in Flynn these two different syntax elements “separately define whether RDPCM is enabled for intra-prediction and inter-prediction, respectively” (id. at 6), in contrast to the “single syntax element” of claim 1. For these reasons, on the record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Flynn, Naccari, Tabatabai, and Lee teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of independent claim 1, as well as of independent claims 13, 25, 38, 51, 53, 55, and 57. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 13, 25, 38, 51, 53, 55, and 57, as well as dependent claims 2-4, 6-9, 15, 16, 18-21, 26-28, 30-33, 37, 40, 41, and 43-46. Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other contentions. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”). Obviousness over Naccari, Lee, Tabatabai, and Sasai The Examiner rejects claim 50 over Naccari, Lee, Tabatabai, and Sasai. Final Act. 13. The Examiner, however, has withdrawn the rejection of independent claim 38, from which claim 50 depends, over Naccari, Lee, Tabatabai, and Sasai. See Ans. 3. The Examiner therefore fails to present a prima facie case of obviousness for claim 50 because there is no outstanding rejection that explains how the combination of Naccari, Lee, Tabatabai, and Sasai teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 38, which are necessarily Appeal 2021-001432 Application 14/469,477 7 present in claim 50. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 50 over Naccari, Lee, Tabatabai, and Sasai. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6-9, 13, 15, 16, 18-21, 25-28, 30-33, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43-46, 50, 51, 53, 55, and 57. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-4, 6-9, 13, 15, 16, 18-21, 25-28, 30-33, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43-46, 51, 53, 55, 57 103 Flynn, Naccari, Tabatabai, Lee 1-4, 6-9, 13, 15, 16, 18- 21, 25-28, 30-33, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43-46, 51, 53, 55, 57 50 103 Naccari, Lee, Tabatabai, Sasai 50 Overall Outcome 1-4, 6-9, 13, 15, 16, 18- 21, 25-28, 30-33, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43-46, 50, 51, 53, 55, 57 REVERSED