QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 26, 2021

2020001329 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 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. 14/244,688 04/03/2014 Liwei Guo 1212-541US01/132473U1 7022 15150 7590 05/26/2021 Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A. 1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100 Woodbury, MN 55125 EXAMINER ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/26/2021 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 LIWEI GUO, MARTA KARCZEWICZ, JOEL SOLE ROJALS, and RAJAN LAXMAN JOSHI ________________ Appeal 2020-001329 Application 14/244,688 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 12, 15, 18, 19, 23, 26, and 31–48, which are all the claims pending in this application.1 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. Appellant identifies Qualcomm Incorporated as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-001329 Application 14/244,688 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s application relates to palette-based video encoding and decoding, where the video encoder codes index values for pixels that relate to pixels with entries in the palette representing the colors of the pixels rather than the actual pixel values. Spec. ¶ 7. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A method of decoding video data, the method comprising: determining a predictor palette for constructing a current palette for a current block of video data, the predictor palette having a plurality of palette predictor entries that indicate respective color values, the predictor palette determined based on palette entries of palettes of a plurality of previously coded blocks of video data such that the plurality of palette predictor entries comprise color values from the palettes of the plurality of previously coded blocks, wherein the plurality of previously coded blocks of video data are different than the current block of video data; decoding, from a video bitstream and for the current palette, a representation of a plurality of binary flags, each respective binary flag of the plurality of binary flags indicating whether or not a corresponding palette predictor entry in the predictor palette is to be added to the current palette for the current block of video data; constructing the current palette for the current block of video data based on the predictor palette, wherein constructing the current palette comprises adding, to the current palette for the current block, one or more palette entries of the plurality of palette predictor entries of the predictor palette indicated by corresponding binary flags of the plurality of binary flags as to be added to the current palette; and decoding pixels of the current block of video data using the current palette by at least: Appeal 2020-001329 Application 14/244,688 3 obtaining, from the video bitstream, respective index values for one or more of the pixels, each of the respective index values identifying an entry of the current palette; and determining values for the one more pixels by matching the respective index values to at least one of the entries of the current palette. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 33, 34, 45, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. Final Act. 5‒8. Claims 1, 4–5, 9, 12, 15, 18, 19, 23, 26, and 31–48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Yue (US 6,748,116 B1; June 8, 2004), Kadatch (US 7,343,037 B1; Mar. 11, 2008), and Lee (US 2003/0093817 A1; May 15, 2003). Final Act. 13‒25. ANALYSIS Indefiniteness Claim 33 recites “[t]he apparatus of claim 15, wherein the apparatus is a wireless communication device that includes the memory and the one or more processors, the wireless communication device further comprising a receiver configured to receive the current block of video data.” The Examiner concludes claim 33 is indefinite because it seeks to redefine the claimed apparatus of claim 15 instead of limiting the scope of what is recited in claim 15. Final Act. 6−7. The Examiner notes that two different definitions of an apparatus are incorporated in a single claim. Ans. 11. Appellant argues the Examiner erred because claim 33 is definite. See Appeal Br. 16‒17. In particular, Appellant argues the limitations of dependent claim 33 further limit the broader limitations of independent claim 15. See id. Appeal 2020-001329 Application 14/244,688 4 Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. Claim 15 recites “[a]n apparatus for decoding video data, the apparatus comprising: a memory storing video data; and one or more processors.” Claim 33 recites “[t]he apparatus of claim 15, wherein the apparatus is a wireless communication device that includes the memory and the one or more processors.” Thus, claim 33 further limits claim 15 by specifying that the recited apparatus that includes the memory and the one or more processors “is a wireless communication device.” Claim 33 also limits claim 15 by specifying that “the wireless communication device” (i.e., the apparatus) “further compris[es] a receiver configured to receive the current block of video data.” We agree with Appellant that claim 33 does not improperly redefine the apparatus. Instead, claim 33 further limits the apparatus to a wireless communication device. For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claim 33. The Examiner rejects claims 34, 45, and 46 as indefinite for the same reasons as claim 33. See Final Act. 6‒7. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the indefiniteness rejection of claims 34, 45, and 46 for the same reasons. Obviousness The Examiner finds the combination of Yue, Kadatch, and Lee teaches or suggests “each respective binary flag of the plurality of binary flags indicating whether or not a corresponding palette predictor entry in the predictor palette is to be added to the current palette for the current block of video data,” as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 14–19; Ans. 11–14. In particular, the Examiner finds Yue teaches creating and updating palettes with new colors and identifying new information using flags. Appeal 2020-001329 Application 14/244,688 5 Ans. 12. The Examiner finds Kadatch and Lee teach palettes and flags can be coded for individual image blocks. Id. at 13. The Examiner finds an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of Kadatch and Lee with Yue’s palette creation to code image blocks rather than entire images. Id. at 12–14. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred because Yue, Kadatch and Lee do not teach the disputed limitation. See Appeal Br. 20–26; Reply Br. 5‒6. Specifically, Appellant argues that Yue describes building an intensity palette, Kadatch describes encoding the palette based on an index that points to a particular color or grayscale, and Lee describes movement data fields that indicate if an image is magnified and rotated. See Appeal Br. 21–23. Appellant argues this is different than a flag indicating whether or not a corresponding palette predictor entry in the predictor palette is to be added to the current block of video data. Reply Br. 6. Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner has not sufficiently supported the finding that the combination of Yue, Kadatch, and Lee teaches or suggests a predictor palette and a plurality of binary flags that indicate whether a corresponding entry in the predictor palette needs to be added for the current block of video data. In particular, the Examiner finds Yue teaches creating and updating palettes, but the Examiner has not identified, nor have we found, any teachings or suggestions in Yue (or Kadatch or Lee) of decoding binary flags, where each binary flag indicates whether or not a corresponding palette predictor entry is to be added to the current palette. See Ans. 12‒14. That is, Yue teaches creating a current palette, but the Examiner has not sufficiently supported the finding that Yue, Appeal 2020-001329 Application 14/244,688 6 Kadatch, or Lee teaches or suggests a predictor palette that is used in the claimed manner in this construction. For these reasons, the Examiner has failed to sufficiently establish that Yue, Kadatch and Lee, alone or in combination, teach or suggest the disputed limitations.2 Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 15, 35, and 41, which recite commensurate subject matter. We also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 4, 5, 9, 12, 18, 19, 23, 26, 31‒34, 36–40, and 42‒48. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 33, 34, 45, 46 112(b) Indefiniteness 33, 34, 45, 46 1, 4, 5, 9, 12, 15, 18, 19, 23, 26, 31‒48 103 Yue, Kadatch, Lee 1, 4, 5, 9, 12, 15, 18, 19, 23, 26, 31‒48 Overall Outcome 1, 4, 5, 9, 12, 15, 18, 19, 23, 26, 31‒48 REVERSED 2 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.