QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2021

2020003649 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 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.
15/432,839 02/14/2017 Marta Karczewicz 1414-214US01/162184U1 5030
15150 7590 09/30/2021
Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A.
1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
EXAMINER
TORRENTE, RICHARD T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2021 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 MARTA KARCZEWICZ, WEI-JUNG CHIEN, and LI ZHANG
Appeal 2020-003649
Application 15/432,839
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, 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 to reject claims 1–4, 6–16, 18–28, 30–38, and 40–44.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Qualcomm Incorporated. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-003649
Application 15/432,839
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an adaptive video filter. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of filtering a decoded block of video data, the
method comprising:
decoding a current block of a current picture of the video
data;
calculating one or more gradients of pixels within the
current block, the one or more gradients representing
directionality and activity for the current block;
selecting a filter to be used to filter at least one pixel of the
current block, wherein selecting the filter comprises selecting
the filter according to the directionality and activity for the
current block;
selecting a geometric transform to be performed on one of a
filter support region or coefficients of the selected filter,
wherein selecting the geometric transform comprises selecting
the geometric transform according to the one or more gradients;
performing the geometric transform on either the filter
support region or the coefficients of the selected filter; and
filtering the at least one pixel of the current block using
the selected filter after performing the geometric transform.
Appeal 2020-003649
Application 15/432,839
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Watanabe et al. US 2011/0069752 A1 Mar. 24, 2011
Tezuka US 2011/0216984 A1 Sept. 8, 2011
Chen et al. “Coding tools investigation
for next generation
video coding,” COM 16-
C806-E,
INTERNATIONAL
TELECOMMUNICATlON
UNION
TELECOMMUNICATION
STANDARDIZATION
SECTOR (filed in an IDS)
January 2015

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 6–15, 18–27, 30–37, and 40–44 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Tezuka.
Claims 4, 16, 28, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Watanabe and Tezuka in view of Chen.

OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 103
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Where “the problem is known, the possible approaches to solving the
problem are known and finite, and the solution is predictable through use of
a known option,” a solution that is obvious to try may indeed be obvious.
Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 544 F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing
KSR, 550 U.S. at 421). Moreover, a finding of obviousness under the
“obvious to try” standard “does not require absolute predictability of success
Appeal 2020-003649
Application 15/432,839
4
. . . all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re Kubin,
561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (emphasis, internal quotation, and
bracketed alteration omitted) (quoting In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903–04
(Fed. Cir. 1988)).
“We must still be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of
references to reach the claimed invention without any explanation as to how
or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed
invention.” Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1374 n.3
(Fed. Cir. 2008).
[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a
suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but
when the “improvement” is technology-independent and the
combination of references results in a product or process that is
more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper,
cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient.
Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by
improving a product or process is universal—and even
common-sensical— . . . there exists in these situations a
motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint
of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations,
the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses
knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the
prior art references.
Dystar Textilfarben Gmbh & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464
F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
“[T]he Board need only establish motivation to combine by a
preponderance of the evidence to make its prima facie case.” In re Kahn,
441 F. 3d 977, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Appeal 2020-003649
Application 15/432,839
5
Independent Claims 1, 13, 25, and 35
Appellant does not advance separate arguments in support of the
patentability of any particular claim or claim grouping. Appeal Br. 10–11.
Accordingly, we exercise our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)
and group independent claims 13, 25, and 35 with representative claim 1.
To the extent Appellant has not timely advanced separate, substantive
arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are
forfeited.2 See, e.g., 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds the Watanabe reference teaches a method of
filtering a decoded block of video data and selecting a filter by adjusting the
coefficients and then applies a geometric transformation to the decoder data,
but does not use “according to the one or more gradients as the claimed.”
Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner relies upon the Tezuka reference for teaching
or suggesting use of the gradient in selecting a geometric transform. Final
Act. 3.
Appellant argues that the Watanabe reference only has one filter for
each slice and thus the same filter is applied to all blocks. Appeal Br. 8–
9. Appellant also argues that the combination fails to disclose or suggest, for

2 See In re Google Technology Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir.
2020) (some internal citation omitted):
It is well established that “[w]aiver is different from forfeiture.”
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993). “Whereas
forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right,
waiver is the ‘intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a
known right.’” Id. (quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458,
464 (1938)) (additional citations omitted). The two scenarios
can have different consequences for challenges raised on
appeal, id. at 733–34, and for that reason, it is worth attending
to which label is the right one in a particular case.
Appeal 2020-003649
Application 15/432,839
6
example, “selecting a filter to be used to filter at least one pixel of the
current block, wherein selecting the filter comprises selecting the filter
according to the directionality and activity for the current block.” Appeal
Br. 8. Appellant further argues that generating filter application control
information, which is for enabling filter rotation or pixel replacement and
indicates how a filter should be applied, in the Watanabe reference, is not the
same as selecting a filter for a block based on a directionality and activity for
the block, as claimed. Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant further argues that in the Watanabe reference there is
exactly one filter for each slice, where a slice includes a plurality of blocks.
Appeal Br. 8. Appellant further argues that Figures 9 and 10 of Watanabe
evidence that the same filter is used in Watanabe for all blocks of a slice.
Appeal Br. 8.
We note claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation, as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art and taking
into account whatever enlightenment may be had from the specification. In
re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “In the patentability
context, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretations[,]
. . . limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.” In
re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).
We disagree with Appellant and find that Appellant’s argument is not
commensurate in scope with the language of independent claim 1. We note
that claim 1 is directed to a “block” and not plural blocks with different
filters and does not set forth “selecting the filter from a plurality of filters.”
As a result, Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of error in the Examiner’s
factual findings or conclusion of obviousness.
Appeal 2020-003649
Application 15/432,839
7
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues the Examiner’s reliance upon
step 203 of Figure 14 of the Watanabe reference (Final Act. 2) is in error,
and the Examiner clarifies and identifies steps 202–206 of Figure 14 with
regards to “selecting” the filter limitation and identifies the narrow
interpretation of “selecting” in Response to Arguments section of the
Examiner’s Answer. See Ans. 9–10; Reply Br. 6.3
In the Reply Brief, Appellant does not specifically address the
clarified discussion by the Examiner and argues step 203 of the Watanabe
reference as identified in the Final Office Action and as discussed in the
Appeal Brief. Reply Br. 5. Appellant generally addresses the Examiner’s
clarification in the Examiner’s Answer, but Appellant then identifies the
limitations of dependent claim 2 regarding the specific limitations regarding
the geometric transform.
We disagree with Appellant and find that Appellant’s argument is not
commensurate in scope with the language of independent claim 1. We note
that independent claim 1 does not set forth the specific limitations as recited
in dependent claim 2. As a result, Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of
error in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness of
representative independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, and 8–12 not
separately argued.4

3 We further note that Appellant does not set forth separate arguments for
patentability of dependent claim 2 in the principal brief. (Appeal Br. 8), but
includes claim to with representative independent claim 1.
4 We note that the limitations of dependent claim 2 were not specifically
argued in the Appeal Brief and arguments thereto were forfeited.

Appeal 2020-003649
Application 15/432,839
8
Independent claims 13, 25, and 35
With respect to independent claims 13, 25, and 35, Appellant does not
set forth separate arguments for patentability and relies upon the arguments
advanced with respect to independent claim 1. Therefore, we group
independent claims 13, 25, and 35 and their respective dependent claims 14,
15, 20–24, 26, 27, 32–34, 36, 37, and 42–44 not separately argued, as falling
with representative independent claim 1 and any separate arguments for
patentability are forfeited.

Dependent claims 6, 18, 30, and 40
Appellant argues the claims together. Appeal Br. 11. We select
dependent claim 6 as the representative claim. Appellant relies upon the
arguments advanced with respect to representative independent claim 1.
Appeal Br. 11. Appellant further argues that the combination fails to
disclose or suggest, “selecting the geometric transform that corresponds to
orientations of the one or more gradients of the one or more pixels,” as
claimed in claim 6. Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant recites the language of dependent claim 6 and identifies the
specific teachings of the Watanabe reference and generally concludes that
the combination does not disclose or suggest the claimed limitation. Appeal
Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 8. We do not find Appellant’s argument to be a
specific substantive argument for patentability. Appellant argues that the
“Watanabe reference does not teach determining a gradient at all,” but we
note that the Examiner relied upon the Tezuka reference to teach and
suggests the use of a “gradient.” Appeal Br. 11. As a result, Appellant’s
argument is not commensurate in scope with the Examiner’s applied
rejection and does not show error in the Examiner’s factual findings or
Appeal 2020-003649
Application 15/432,839
9
conclusion of obviousness of representative dependent claim 6 and claims
18, 30, and 40 not separately argued.

Dependent claims 7, 19, 31, and 41
Appellant argues the claims together. Appeal Br. 11. We select
dependent claim 7 as the representative claim. Appellant relies upon the
arguments advanced with respect to representative independent claim 1.
Appeal Br. 11. Appellant further argues that Watanabe in view of Tezuka
fails to disclose or suggest “calculating the one or more gradients comprises
calculating at least one of a horizontal gradient, a vertical gradient, a 45
degree diagonal gradient, or a 135 degree diagonal gradient,” per claim 7.
Again, Appellant argues that the Watanabe reference does not teach or
suggest the claimed “gradient,” but the Examiner relied upon the teachings
of the Tezuka reference for teaching or suggesting the claimed “gradient.”5
Appeal Br. 11–12.
As a result, Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with
the Examiner’s applied rejection and does not show error in the Examiner’s
factual findings or conclusion of obviousness of representative dependent
claim 7 and claims 19, 31, and 41 not separately argued.

Dependent claims 4, 16, 28, and 38
Appellant argues the claims together. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant relies
upon the arguments advanced with respect to representative independent
claim 1 and that the Chen reference does not remedy the deficiency in the

5 We note that the Tezuka reference discloses horizontal and vertical
gradients and the language of dependent claim 7 merely recites “calculating
at least one of.” (Emphasis added). See Tezuka ¶ 62.
Appeal 2020-003649
Application 15/432,839
10
base combination. Appeal Br. 13. We do not find this to be a separate
argument for patentability. Because we found no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of representative independent claim 1, we group claims 4, 16, 28,
and 38 as falling with independent claim 1.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections are affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 6–15,
18–27, 30–
37, 40–44
103 Watanabe, Tezuka 1–3, 6–15,
18–27, 30–
37, 40–44

4, 16, 28, 38 103 Watanabe, Tezuka,
Chen
4, 16, 28, 38
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–16,
18–28, 30–
38, 40–44

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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED