Su, Yeping et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 15, 2019

14882586 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2019)

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. 14/882,586 10/14/2015 Yeping Su 40305-0011002 3043 143308 7590 08/15/2019 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (Dolby) PO BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 EXAMINER SECHSER, JILL D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/15/2019 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): PATDOCTC@fr.com mguo@dolby.com patents@dolby.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte YEPING SU and CHRISTOPHER A. SEGALL _____________ Appeal 2019-000371 Application 14/882,5861 Technology Center 2400 ______________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ERIC S. FRAHM, STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claim 2. Claim 1 has been canceled (Final Act. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 According to Appellants, Dolby International AB is the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 1), and this application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/896,800, which application was indicated as allowable in the Notice of Allowance mailed June 18, 2018. Appeal 2019-000371 Application 14/882,586 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention pertains to high- definition video transmission and display using video compression and encoding (see Spec. ¶¶ 1–3, 8; Abs.; claim 2), and more particularly to video compression using motion estimation having motion vectors indicating inter- frame movement, where “motion estimation is the process of calculating and encoding motion vectors as a substitute for duplicating the encoding of similar information in sequential frames” (Spec. ¶ 4). Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention uses motion vector competition (MVC), which “improves the coding of motion vector data by differentially encoding the motion vectors themselves in terms of a motion vector predictor and a motion vector differential” determined based on “candidate motion vectors” (Spec. ¶ 7), such that desired video quality is preserved while limiting the number of motion vectors that are encoded and transmitted (see Spec. ¶¶ 7, 8). Claim 2 is the only claim on appeal, and is reproduced below, with emphasis added to the key disputed limitation: 2. A method for decoding a current block in a current image comprising: identifying a first adjacent block and a second adjacent block which are adjacent to the current block in the current image; constructing a set of candidate motion vector predictors for the current block comprising motion vectors of the first and second adjacent blocks; determining whether the motion vectors of the first and second adjacent blocks are identical; when the motion vectors of the first and second adjacent blocks are identical: Appeal 2019-000371 Application 14/882,586 3 removing the motion vector of the second adjacent block from the set of candidate motion vector predictors, and [A] adding a motion vector of a co-located block in a previously decoded picture to the set of candidate motion vector predictors for the current block, wherein the co-located block is co-located in the previously decoded picture relative to the current block in the current image, and wherein the co- located block in the previously decoded picture is larger than the current block; selecting one of the motion vectors in the set of the candidate motion vector predictors as the motion vector predictor of the current block; deriving the motion vector of the current block based on the selected motion vector predictor; deriving a reference block of the current block from a reference image using the derived motion vector of the current block; and deriving the current block using the reference block and a residual of the current block. Claims Appendix (Appeal Br. 11–12) (bracketed lettering and emphasis added). The Examiner’s Rejection The Examiner rejected claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hallapuro (US 2009/0304084 A1; published Dec. 10, 2009) and Yoo (US 2010/0054334 A1; published March 4, 2010). Final Act. 3–5. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs (Appeal Br. 7– 10 and Reply Br. 1–2), the Examiner’s rejection (Final Act. 3–5), and the Appeal 2019-000371 Application 14/882,586 4 Examiner’s response (Ans. 2–5) to Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief. Appellants contend (Appeal Br. 7–10; Reply Br. 1–2) the Examiner has not adequately shown how or why the combination of Hallapuro and Yoo teaches or suggests adding, to a set of candidate motion vectors for the current block, a motion vector of a block in a previously decoded picture that is co-located relative to a current block and is larger than the current block as required by limitation [A] recited in claim 2. Appellant also contends “the cited portions of Yoo are concerned only with using the prediction mode of one block in determining the prediction mode of another block” (Reply Br. 2). We agree. The portions of Yoo cited by the Examiner pertain to prediction modes using prediction mode candidates (see e.g., Yoo Table 1; ¶¶ 26, 42– 45, 48–51), and not to motion vectors and a set of candidate motion vectors. Although the Examiner is correct that paragraph 26 of Yoo describes encoding in a “skip mode” using predictive motion vectors (see Ans. 4 citing Yoo ¶ 26), Yoo is silent as to, and the Examiner has not adequately articulated, how or why this relates to either (i) “adding a motion vector of a co-located block in a previously decoded picture to the set of candidate motion vector predictors for the current block;” or (ii) “the co-located block in the previously decoded picture” being “larger than the current block,” as set forth in limitation [A] of claim 2. The USPTO “must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (internal Appeal 2019-000371 Application 14/882,586 5 quotation marks and citation omitted); see Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d 1309, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating that, as an administrative agency, the PTAB “must articulate logical and rational reasons for [its] decisions” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). We will not resort to speculation or assumptions to cure the deficiencies in the Examiner’s fact finding. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). In this light, the Examiner has not articulated a satisfactory explanation as to the combination, including a rational connection between the facts found as to Hallapuro and Yoo and the motivation or rationale for making the combination. As a result, we agree with Appellants (Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2) that the proposed combination of Hallapuro and Yoo has not been shown to teach or suggest limitation [A] recited in claim 2, including adding a motion vector of a co-located block in a previously decoded picture, that is co-located relative to a current block and is larger than the current block, to a set of candidate motion vectors for the current block. At best, the Examiner leaves us to speculate as to how or why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the combination of Hallapuro and Yoo to meet limitation [A] recited in claim 2. We will not resort to speculation or assumptions to cure the deficiencies in the Examiner’s fact finding and reasoning. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d at 1017; Ex parte Braeken, 54 USPQ2d 1110, 1112 (BPAI 1999) (unpublished) (“The review authorized by 35 U.S.C. [§] 134 is not a process whereby the examiner . . . invite[s] the [B]oard to examine the application and resolve patentability in the first instance.”). As such, based on the record before us, we find that the Appeal 2019-000371 Application 14/882,586 6 Examiner (i) improperly relies upon the combination of Hallapuro and Yoo to teach or suggest disputed claim limitation [A] as set forth in claim 2; and thus, (ii) has not properly established factual determinations and articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness for claim 2, resulting in a failure to establish a prima facie of obviousness. Based on the record before us, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 2 over the combination of Hallapuro and Yoo. CONCLUSION Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 2. DECISION We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claim 2. REVERSED