QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 8, 2020

2019005160 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2020)

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. 15/177,201 06/08/2016 Rajan Laxman Joshi 1414-118US01/154067 6836 15150 7590 12/08/2020 Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A. 1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100 Woodbury, MN 55125 EXAMINER HILAIRE, CLIFFORD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2488 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/08/2020 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 RAJAN LAXMAN JOSHI, VADIM SEREGIN, WEI PU, FENG ZOU, and MARTA KARCZEWICZ ____________________ Appeal 2019-005160 Application 15/177,201 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from a Final Rejection2 of claims 1, 3–5, 7–11, 13–15, 17–21, 23, and 25–30, all of the pending claims. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant has “cancelled claims 2, 6, 12, 16, 22, and 24.” Amendment 13 (July 12, 2018). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse and enter a new ground of rejection. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Qualcomm Incorporated. Appeal Br. 3. 2 “Final Act.” is the action dated Oct. 11, 2018. Appeal 2019-005160 Application 15/177,201 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material added): 1. A method of decoding video data, the method comprising: [A.] decoding, from a coded video bitstream and using context adaptive binary arithmetic coding (CABAC) with a context, a syntax element that indicates whether a transpose process is applied to palette indices of a current palette for a current block of video data; [B.] decoding, from the coded video bitstream and at a position in the coded video bitstream that is after the syntax element that indicates whether the transpose process is applied to palette indices of the current palette for the current block of video data and using CABAC with a context, one or more syntax elements related to delta quantization parameter (QP) and/or chroma QP offsets for the current block of video data; [C.] decoding, from the coded video bitstream, a group of syntax elements using Bypass mode, wherein the group of syntax elements comprises: [i.] one or more syntax elements that indicate a number of zeros that precede a non-zero entry in an array that indicates whether entries from a predictor palette are reused in the current palette; [ii.] a syntax element that indicates a number of entries in the current palette that are explicitly signalled; [iii.] one or more syntax elements that each indicate a value of a component in an entry in the current palette; [iv.] a syntax element that indicates whether the current block of video data includes at least one escape coded sample; Appeal 2019-005160 Application 15/177,201 3 [v.] a syntax element that indicates a number of indices in the current palette that are explicitly signalled or inferred; and [vi.] one or more syntax elements that indicate indices in an array of entries of the current palette; and [D.] decoding the current block of video data based on the current palette for the current block of video data, the group of syntax elements, and the one or more syntax elements related to delta QP and/or chroma QP offsets for the current block of video data. REFERENCES3 The Examiner relies on the following references: Name Reference Date Liu US 2017/0374372 A1 Dec. 28, 2017 Xiu WO 2016/123388 A1 Aug. 4, 2016 REJECTIONS A. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 7–11, 13, 17–21, 23, and 25–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Xiu. Final Act. 2–12. B. The Examiner rejects claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Xiu and Liu. Final Act. 13–17. 3 All citations herein to patent and pre-grant publication references are by reference to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2019-005160 Application 15/177,201 4 OPINION Appellant presents arguments as to why the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 based on the applied references. Other than the issue discussed below, we do not reach the merits of the Examiner’s rejections or the merits of the references at this time. Rather, we reverse pro forma the outstanding rejections of claims 1, 3–5, 7–11, 13–15, 17–21, 23, and 25–30 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(2) and 103 because appealed claims 1, 3–5, 7–11, 13–15, 17–21, 23, and 25–30 fail to satisfy the definiteness requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Before a proper review of the prior art rejections can be performed, the subject matter encompassed by the claims on appeal must be reasonably understood without resort to speculation. Presently, we would be forced to engage in speculation and conjecture to determine the scope of the claimed invention as the claims are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). This we decline to do. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962) (A prior art rejection cannot be sustained if the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have to make speculative assumptions concerning the meaning of claim language); see also In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970) (“If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain terms in the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious— the claim becomes indefinite.”). A. The Examiner finds as to above step B of claim 1: Xiu teaches . . . decoding, from the coded video bitstream and at a position positon in the coded video bitstream that is after the syntax Appeal 2019-005160 Application 15/177,201 5 element that indicates whether the transpose process is applied to palette indices of the current palette for the current block of video data and using CABAC with a contex[t] (i.e.[,] Depending on the values of palette_transpose_flag and palette_flipping_flag received in the video bitstream, a corresponding scan order may be selected and applied in the decoding-¶0061), one or more syntax elements related to delta quantization parameter (QP) and/or chroma QP offsets for the current block of video data (i.e.[,] cu_chroma_qp_palette_offset_flag, cu_chroma_qp_palette_offs et_idx-, PaletteEscapeVal- Table 6); Final Act. 2–3. B. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) because: Appellant notes that claim 1 expl[i]citly sets forth that the “one or more syntax elements related to delta quantization parameter (QP) and/or chroma QP offsets for the current block of video data” are coded “after the syntax element that indicates whether the transpose process is applied to palette indices of the current palette.” Therefore, Appellant respectfully disagrees that Xiu discloses or suggests the subject matter of claim 1 [step B]. Appeal Br. 12 (footnote omitted). C. The Examiner responds: There is absolutely no teaching in the claim about “one or more syntax elements related to delta quantization parameter (QP) and/or chroma QP offsets for the current block of video data” are coded “after the syntax element that indicates whether the transpose process is applied to palette indices of the current palette”. The most pertinent part of claim 1 regarding this argument is: [step B], [which] eludes only to a position “in the coded bitstream that is after the syntax element that indicates Appeal 2019-005160 Application 15/177,201 6 whether the transpose process is applied to palette indices of the current palette”. This limitation is by no way indicative of a temporal sequence on how syntax elements are coded . . . In fact, according to the Applicant owns disclosure, the syntax element that indicates whether the transpose process is applied . . . are at least one of syntax elements . . . encoded using Arithmetic Coding with no or the same context (i.e.[,] see table 3). It is well-known in the art that Arithmetic Coding produces a unique binary string that is mapped to a sequence of symbols (i.e.[,] syntax elements) in a message not to each symbol. The output of the Arithmetic Encoder only output the unique string/bins after all symbols of the message are consumed; therefore it is not possible to have symbols with individual positions within the bitstream. Ans. 20–21. D. In turn, Appellant contends that the Examiner erred because: [T]he Examiner has failed to provide any reasoning as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret the position of a syntax element in a bitstream as the location of the syntax element in a syntax table that specifies the layout of the bitstream. By contrast, Appellant notes that, drafts of video coding standards referenced in Appellant’s disclosure (i.e., HEVC SCC Draft 3) clearly illustrate that a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the position of a syntax element in a bitstream as the location of the syntax element in a syntax table that specifies the layout of the bitstream. Specifically, Section 7.1 of HEVC SCC Draft 3 “Method of specifying syntax in tabular form” provides an example syntax table and specifies that “[w]hen syntax_element appears, it specifies that a syntax element is parsed from the bitstream and the bitstream pointer is advanced to the next position beyond the syntax element in the bitstream parsing process.” Section 7.1 of The High Efficiency Video Appeal 2019-005160 Application 15/177,201 7 Coding (HEVC) standard (cited by Xiu) makes an identical statement. As such, the person of ordinary skill in the art would clearly interpret the features of claim 1 in the manner argued by Appellant in the Appeal Brief filed March 4, 2019. Reply Br. 7 (emphasis and formatting added)(footnotes omitted). E. Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we reject claims 1, 3–5, 7–11, 13–15, 17–21, 23, and 25–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as indefinite. Step B of claim 1 recites (emphasis added): [B.] decoding, from the coded video bitstream and at a position in the coded video bitstream that is after the syntax element that indicates whether the transpose process is applied to palette indices of the current palette for the current block of video data and using CABAC with a context, one or more syntax elements related to delta quantization parameter (QP) and/or chroma QP offsets for the current block of video data. Appellant construes step B as requiring: “one or more syntax elements related to delta quantization parameter (QP) and/or chroma QP offsets for the current block of video data” are coded “after the syntax element that indicates whether the transpose process is applied to palette indices of the current palette.” Appeal Br. 12 (footnote omitted). Then, Appellant further construes “position of a syntax element in a bitstream” as requiring: the location of the syntax element in a syntax table that specifies the layout of the bitstream. Reply Br. 7. In contrast, the Examiner determines that Step B of claim 1 only requires: Appeal 2019-005160 Application 15/177,201 8 a position “in the coded bitstream that is after the syntax element that indicates whether the transpose process is applied to palette indices of the current palette”. This limitation is by no way indicative of a temporal sequence on how syntax elements are coded. Ans. 21. The Examiner further determines: [I]t is not possible to have symbols with individual positions within the bitstream. Ans. 21. We are unable to reconcile either the Examiner’s or the Appellant’s claim construction with the language of step B of claim 1. We find no reasonable basis for an ordinary skilled artisan to understand either interpretation (or even to prefer one over the other) from the language of claim 1 in view of the relevant disclose of the Specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification.”). At best these interpretations are subjective. “The scope of claim language cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purportedly practicing the invention.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see Morris, 127 F.3d at 1056 (“It is the applicants’ burden to precisely define the invention, not the USPTO’s.”). Further, we find that independent claims 11, 21, 29, and 30 recite corresponding limitations, and Appellant and the Examiner apply corresponding and irreconcilable interpretations to these limitations. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 42–43 (Claims Appeal 2019-005160 Application 15/177,201 9 App.) (claim 30); Appeal Br. 28 (Appellant relying on contentions with respect to claim 1 for independent claim 30). We are unable to determine an appropriate interpretation for step B of claim 1. The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires a claim to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. In discussing the requirements of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals stated in In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382 (CCPA 1970): Its purpose is to provide those who would endeavor, in future enterprise, to approach the area circumscribed by the claims of a patent, with the adequate notice demanded by due process of law, so that they may more readily and accurately determine the boundaries of protection involved and evaluate the possibility of infringement4 and dominance. The problems we discuss above render it impossible for us to accurately determine the boundaries of protection claimed and to evaluate the patentability of the claimed methods, devices, and computer readable storage media with a reasonable degree of certainty, as discussed by the court in In re Hammack, supra. See Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[T]he patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting 4 See Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 21 F. 319 (W.D.Ohio 1884) (affirmed and quoted with approval in Western v. Active Mfg. Co., 129 U.S. 530, 537 (1889)) (“That which infringes if later, anticipates if earlier.”). Appeal 2019-005160 Application 15/177,201 10 to resolve the ambiguity in litigation.”). Accordingly, for this reason we reject Appellant’s pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 7–11, 13, 17–21, 23, and 25–30 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We newly reject claims 1, 3–5, 7–11, 13–15, 17–21, 23, and 25–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed New Ground 1, 3, 7– 11, 13, 17–21, 23, 25– 30 102 Xiu 1, 3, 7– 11, 13, 17–21, 23, 25– 30 4, 5, 14, 15 103 Xiu, Liu 4, 5, 14, 15 1, 3–5, 7–11, 13–15, 17–21, 23, 25– 30 112(b) Indefiniteness 1, 3–5, 7–11, 13–15, 17–21, 23, 25– 30 Appeal 2019-005160 Application 15/177,201 11 Overall Outcome 1, 3–5, 7–11, 13–15, 17–21, 23, 25– 30 1, 3–5, 7–11, 13–15, 17–21, 23, 25– 30 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. . . . (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. . . . Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01. REVERSED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)