Sun Patent Trust

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 29, 2022

2021000947 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2022)

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. 15/130,080 04/15/2016 Kengo TERADA 2016-0203A 8230 513 7590 03/29/2022 WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P. 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 EXAMINER ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2022 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): eoa@wenderoth.com kmiller@wenderoth.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KENGO TERADA, TAKAHIRO NISHI, and HISAO SASAI Appeal 2021-000947 Application 15/130,080 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. CYGAN, 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 6-10, 13-15, and 18-20. Appeal Br. 2. Claims 1-5, 11-12, 16-17, and 21-22 have been cancelled. Id. at 21-25 (Claims App.). 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sun Patent Trust of New York, New York. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-000947 Application 15/130,080 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter generally relates to image coding and decoding methods. Spec. ¶ 1. The High Efficiency Video Coding Standard (“HEVC”) provides a way to compress a video signal; i.e., a plurality of pictures arranged in chronological order. Id. ¶ 11. Coding of the video uses three type of predicted pictures: an intra-prediction picture (“I-picture”), a forward predicted picture (“P-picture”), and a bi-directional predicted picture (“B-picture”). Id. ¶ 13. HEVC uses a hierarchical structure to realize temporal scalability. Id. ¶ 12. Temporal scalability is realized by prohibiting the use of a picture with a larger Temporal ID, i.e., a deeper layer in the coding structure, as a reference picture. Id. ¶¶ 13, 15. Independent claim 6 is illustrative: 6. A transmitting method, performed by a transmitting device, for transmitting hierarchically encoded pictures to a receiving device, the transmitting method comprising: obtaining pictures arranged in display order, the pictures including I pictures, P pictures, and B pictures corresponding to Intra Coded Frames, Predicted Frames, and Bi-directional Predicted Frames of High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) standard, respectively; associating Temporal IDs defined in the HEVC standard with the pictures arranged in the display order such that a largest Temporal ID is associated with highest B pictures among the B pictures and any one of smaller Temporal IDs is associated with the I pictures, the P pictures, and lower B pictures among the B pictures; reordering the pictures to change the display order to encoding order in order to satisfy (i) a first condition under which a first picture is provided in front of the second picture in the encoding order if the first picture is referenced to encode the second picture and a first Temporal ID of the first picture is Appeal 2021-000947 Application 15/130,080 3 equal to or smaller than a second Temporal ID of the second picture and (ii) a second condition under which pictures having any one of the smaller Temporal IDs are arranged in the encoding order at intervals and the highest B pictures are arranged in the encoding order at the intervals such that the highest B pictures and the pictures having any one of the smaller Temporal IDs are alternately arranged in the encoding order; encoding, by encoding circuitry of the transmitting device, the pictures arranged in the encoding order to output encoded pictures arranged in the encoding order; generating a bitstream including the encoded pictures arranged in the encoding order and decoding timings of the encoded pictures, all of the encoded pictures arranged in the encoding order being to be decoded at a first frame rate in the receiving device according to the decoding timings or only the pictures having any one of the smaller Temporal IDs being to be decoded at a second frame rate in the receiving device according to the decoding timings, the second frame rate being half the first frame rate; and transmitting the bitstream to the receiving device. Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). Claim 13 recites a method of receiving and claim 18 recites a device for receiving that each have features similar to that of claim 1. Id. at 22-25. Dependent claims 7-10, 14-15, and 19-20 incorporate the limitations of their respective independent claims. Id. REFERENCES Name Reference Date Hannuksela US 2010/0189182 A1 July 29, 2010 Benjamin Bross et al. (“Geneva”) High Efficiency Video Coding text specification draft 10, Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 12th Meeting: Geneva Jan. 14-23, 2013 Appeal 2021-000947 Application 15/130,080 4 REJECTIONS2 Claims 6-10, 13-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combination of Hannuksela and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”), incorporating by reference Geneva. Non- Final Act. 21-22. Claims 6-10, 13-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Non-Final Act. 12-13. OPINION 1. Obviousness Appellant argues that the Examiner has not shown the combined teachings of Hannuksela, AAPA (including Geneva) to teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 6, in particular, a second condition under which pictures having any one of the smaller Temporal IDs are arranged in the encoding order at intervals and the highest B pictures are arranged in the encoding order at the intervals such that the highest B pictures and the pictures having any one of the smaller Temporal IDs are alternately arranged in the encoding order. Appeal Br. 17-19. The Examiner finds this limitation to be taught by discussion in the ’080 Specification considered to be AAPA, stating, “alternate arrangements of highest B-pictures and other pictures (including examples of equal intervals for pictures with Temporal Id of ‘0’) in AAPA example illustrated in Specification Figs. 1-6.” Non-Final Act. 23. The Examiner finds that the 2 The Examiner has withdrawn rejections based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112(a). Ans. 4-5. Appeal 2021-000947 Application 15/130,080 5 Temporal ID in the HEVC standard as exemplified by Appellant’s Figure 1 “is an identifier of a layer in the coding structure. . . . realized by prohibiting the use of a picture . . . with reference to I, P, and B coded pictures.” Id. at 22 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 12-15). The Examiner points to I, P, and B values that are “located consecutively in the coded stream” such that they indicate “encoding/decoding in order of data dependence.” Id. (citing Spec. ¶¶ 13, 16). The Examiner further points to Figure 1 of Hannuksela, reproduced below: Figure 1 illustrates a hierarchical coding structure with four levels of temporal scalability, having key pictures I or P 212 coded as the first picture of a group of pictures 214 in decoding order. Hannuksela ¶ 73. The display order is indicated by a picture order count, labeled “POC”, with the first I/P picture at POC 1, and successive B pictures increasing up to a maximum of 7 in the first group of pictures. Id. The pictures at the lowest temporal level TL are associated with the lowest frame rate. Id. The key pictures 0, 8, and Appeal 2021-000947 Application 15/130,080 6 16 are of the lowest temporal level, and the pictures 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15 are of the highest temporal level. Id. The Examiner finds that this description shows that the “highest B pictures and the pictures having any one of the smaller Temporal IDs are alternately arranged in the encoding order,” as claimed. Ans. 7 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner further finds that Hannuksela’s arrangement produces the same benefits as those asserted by Appellant to result from the claimed invention. Id. at 8. Appellant argues that Hannuksela does not suggest the claimed “second condition” because Hannuksela’s Figure 1 illustrates the display order, and not an encoding order as claimed. Reply Br. 2. Appellant argues that Figures 1-3 of AAPA “merely illustrate display times,” and Figures 4-6 “illustrate decoding times.” Appeal Br. 18. Appellant argues that Hannuksela fails to provide the teachings missing from AAPA. Id. Appellant characterizes Hannuksela as describing multi-level temporal scalability hierarchies that significantly improve signal compression efficiency but also significantly delay the start of the rendering from the start of the decoding, because decoded pictures have to be reordered from their decoding order to the output display order. Id. (citing Hannuksela ¶ 6). Appellant asserts that neither AAPA nor Hannuksela suggests reordering the pictures to change the display order to encoding order so as to satisfy the aforementioned second condition. Appeal Br. 18-19. We have considered Appellant’s arguments, but are not persuaded. Appellant argues that Figures 1-3 of AAPA illustrate display times, and not an encoding order. However, Figures 1-3 are described as “picture coded streams (coding order).” Spec. ¶ 16. The same paragraph describes an encoding process: Appeal 2021-000947 Application 15/130,080 7 With this, the picture coded streams (coding order) illustrated in FIG.1, FIG. 2, and FIG. 3 become as illustrated in FIG. 4, FIG. 5, and FIG. 6, respectively. . . . Specifically, the image coding apparatus codes pictures with a small TemporalId first, and subsequently codes pictures with a large TemporalId which use the pictures with a small TemporalId as reference pictures. Id. We further credit the Examiner’s unrebutted characterization of AAPA as indicating “encoding/decoding in order of data dependence,” as reflected by the arrangement of values in the coded stream. Non-Final Act. 23. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s characterization of the description of Figures 1-6 as an encoding process.3 Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has not shown the applied references to teach or suggest the claimed encoding process. Appellant further argues, nothing in the combination of the references discloses or suggests generating a bitstream including the encoded pictures arranged in the encoding order and decoding timings of the encoded pictures, all of the encoded pictures arranged in the encoding order being to be decoded at a first frame rate in the receiving device according to the decoding timings or only the pictures having any one of the smaller Temporal IDs being to be decoded at a second frame rate in the receiving device according to the decoding timings, the second frame rate being half the first frame rate. Appeal Br. 19 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds that the broadest reasonable interpretation of this phrase, consistent with the Specification and the understanding of one having ordinary skill in the art, is that “pictures selected to be in the upper 3 Appellant has not argued that Figures 1-6, and their corresponding description in the Specification, are not prior art. Appeal 2021-000947 Application 15/130,080 8 layer (i.e. most scalable B pictures) correspond to half the total coded pictures, thus accounting for half the total frame rate.” Non-Final Act. 24. The Examiner has found this teaching to be present in the teachings of AAPA Figures 1-3. Id. The Examiner further finds that this “elective arrangement of data” is an obvious arrangement because “discarding the upper layer, having the highest temporal ID, results in loss of exactly half the frames.” Id. Appellant has not clearly pointed out why the Examiner’s rejection does not show the combination to teach or suggest the identified limitation. The Examiner has accounted for the claim limitations as either taught by AAPA or as predictable variation of the arrangement of data. Appellant has not specifically rebutted either of the Examiner’s findings. Consequently, we are not persuaded of error the Examiner’s rejection. For the foregoing reasons, we not are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 6. The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 7-10, 13-15, and 18-20 is based on the same grounds of rejection and Appellant provides the same arguments. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 6-10, 13-15, and 18- 20. 2. Indefiniteness The Examiner finds indefinite claim 6’s limitation, “the highest B pictures and the pictures having any one of the smaller Temporal IDs are alternately arranged in the encoding order.” Non-Final Act. 12 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner argues that “alternate” as used in the claim is not consistent with the “standard definition” of the term, or its usage in the Specification. Ans. 9. The Examiner provides the following reasoning: Appeal 2021-000947 Application 15/130,080 9 [I]t is well established that since the pictures must be coded in order of data dependence (as noted above and required for HEVC decoding), I and P pictures must be coded first and thus can not be alternated with B pictures and preserve the data dependence at the same time, therefore the alternate arrangement requirement can not be strictly limited. Non-Final Act. 12-13. The Examiner points to the Specification and Hannuksela as illustrating the relevant video coding standards. Id. (citing Spec. Figs. 4-6, Hannuksela Fig. 1). The Examiner finds that “alternate” must include doubling or skipping frames as in prior art Figures 1-6 and Appellant’s preferred example in Figure 11, or that the encoding order claimed is not strictly an encoding order. Ans. 8-9. Appellant does not advance an indefiniteness-specific argument against this rejection in the Appeal Brief. However, Appellant states that Figures 9 and 10A-12 illustrate the “alternately arranged” limitation. Appeal Br. 3 (Summary of Claimed Subject Matter). In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that the Examiner errs by limiting the claimed subject matter to a single GOP (Group of Pictures). Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues that when multiple groups of pictures are considered, there is no limitation on coding I and P pictures first. Id. Regarding indefiniteness during prosecution, the Federal Circuit has stated, [W]hen the USPTO has initially issued a well-grounded rejection that identifies ways in which language in a claim is ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention, and thereafter the applicant fails to provide a satisfactory response, the USPTO can properly reject the claim as failing to meet the statutory requirements of § 112(b). In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Appeal 2021-000947 Application 15/130,080 10 We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that the claimed “alternately arranged limitation” conflicts with the disclosure provided in Figures 9 and 10A-12 such that the claims are indefinite. The Examiner points to the initial I and P pictures in Figure 11 as illustrating that I and P cannot be alternated in encoding a group of pictures under the standard definition. Ans. 9. However, Figure 11 also includes additional I and P pictures (e.g., I16, P24, I32, and P40) that are interspersed with B pictures. Spec. Fig. 11. Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that Figure 11 illustrates that I and P cannot be alternately arranged with B pictures. Furthermore, the Figures Appellant cited for support do not reflect any inconsistency with the claim language. Figure 9 describes arranging pictures “so that pictures with the largest TemporalId have odd-number times and the rest of the pictures have even-number times.” Spec. Fig. 9. Figure 10A further illustrates directly alternating shaded and unshaded pictures, wherein the shaded pictures are B pictures having the largest Temporal ID, and the unshaded pictures are B, I, and P pictures not having the largest Temporal ID. Spec. Fig. 10A; ¶ 57. Viewed together, Figures 9 and 10A describe alternating largest and lower Temporal ID pictures, in which the largest Temporal ID pictures are B pictures that alternate with lower Temporal ID pictures that are B, I, or P pictures. Thus, we do not agree that the claim conflicts with the description in Appellant’s Specification. Consequently, the Examiner’s reliance on Figure 11 is insufficient to demonstrate that the claims are indefinite because they define something different than described in the Specification. Appeal 2021-000947 Application 15/130,080 11 The Examiner further finds the claim scope to be indefinite because I and P layers cannot be alternated in encoding a group of pictures “under the standard definition.” Ans. 9. However, the Examiner has not pointed to any “standard” definition. Moreover, we credit Appellant’s argument that the claimed subject matter is not limited to a single group of pictures; thus, even if I and P values must (by definition) be only at the initial part of a group of pictures, the claim may cover multiple groups of pictures including I and P values therein. Reply Br. 3. Additionally, to the extent that the Examiner finds the claims to be contrary to a “well established” coding order (Ans. 8), such a finding goes not to indefiniteness, but instead to lack of either enablement or utility, which have not been advanced here. Consequently, we determine that the Examiner has not provided sufficient support for the indefiniteness findings. For the foregoing reasons, we do not agree that the claim is ambiguous or otherwise unclear. The Examiner has not explained sufficiently how such an interpretation is inconsistent with the described subject matter, or how interpreting “alternate” as including multiple groups of pictures would result in a lack of clarity in the claim scope. Consequently, we reverse the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection. CONCLUSION For the above-described reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 6-10, 13-15, and 18-20, and reverse the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claims 6-10, 13-15, and 18-20. Appeal 2021-000947 Application 15/130,080 12 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 6-10, 13-15, 18-20 103 Hannuksela, Geneva 6-10, 13- 15, 18-20 6-10, 13-15, 18-20 112(b) Indefiniteness 6-10, 13- 15, 18-20 Overall Outcome 6-10, 13- 15, 18-20 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. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2019). AFFIRMED