QUALCOMM IncorporatedDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 30, 20212020003649 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation