Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (publ)

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2022

2020005207 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 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. 14/391,092 10/07/2014 Rickard Sjöberg 9900-37238US2TS 9271 146825 7590 03/30/2022 Sage Patent Group/Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson PO BOX 30789 RALEIGH, NC 27622-0789 EXAMINER PICON-FELICIANO, ANA J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2482 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2022 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): instructions@sagepat.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICKARD SJÖBERG, JACK ENHORN, and JONATAN SAMUELSSON Appeal 2020-005207 Application 14/391,092 Technology Center 2400 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges. BUSCH, 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 1-26, 28, and 30-34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-005207 Application 14/391,092 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention generally relates to systems and methods for processing video and, more specifically to providing an indication that one tile structure is used for all tiles in a sequence, thereby enabling parallel decoding. Spec. 1:3-5, 3:19-27. Claims 1, 6, 11, 17, 23, 24, 26, and 28 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for encoding a sequence of pictures of a video stream of multiple pictures to be performed in an encoder of a communication device, the method comprising: deciding at the encoder whether all the pictures in the sequence of pictures of the video stream are divided in a same way by tiles using a tile structure, initiating transmission, to a receiving device through transmitting hardware, first information indicating how the pictures in the sequence of pictures of the video stream are divided by the tiles using the tile structure responsive to deciding the tile structure is used, responsive to deciding a same tile structure is used for all the pictures throughout the sequence of pictures of the video stream, initiating transmission, to the receiving device through the transmitting hardware, second information indicating that the same tile structure will be used for all the pictures throughout the sequence of pictures of the video stream on deciding the same tile structure is used for all the pictures throughout the sequence of pictures of the video stream, responsive to deciding the same tile structure is not being used for all the pictures throughout the sequence of pictures of the video stream, initiating transmission, to the receiving device through the transmitting hardware, third information indicating that there are tiles in the sequence without details of any of the tile structures being used, initiating transmission, to the receiving device through the transmitting hardware, fourth information providing entry point information for the tiles, wherein the first information, the Appeal 2020-005207 Application 14/391,092 3 second information, the third information and the fourth information are separate from each other, and responsive to deciding the tile structures being used, dividing the pictures according to the tile structures to encode the pictures and, based on a determination of a number of processing cores available to use, encoding the sequence of pictures of the video stream in accordance with the first information, the second information, the third information, the fourth information, and the tile structures. REJECTIONS Claims 1-26, 28, and 30-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Fuldseth (US 2012/0183074 A1; July 19, 2012), Tiles2 (Arild Fuldseth et al., Tiles, JCTVC-F335, Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG16 WP3 & ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 (July 14-22, 2011)), Schierl (US 2014/0334557 A1; Nov. 13, 2014), and Misra3 (Kiran Misra & Andrew Segall, Harmonization of Entry Points for Tiles and Wavefront Processing, JCTVC-G722, Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG16 WP3 & ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 (Nov. 21-30, 2011)). Final Act. 5-31. Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Fuldseth, Tiles, Schierl, Misra, and Segall (US 2012/0230428 A1; Sept. 13, 2012). Final Act. 32-33. ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects all pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious. Final Act. 5-33. Appellant argues the patentability of all pending 2 Consistent with the rejection, we refer to this prior art by its title, “Tiles.” 3 The rejection identifies this prior art as “Segall,” but, to distinguish it from the patent application cited in the rejection of claim 34 in which Segall is the first-listed inventor, we refer to it by the first author’s name, Misra. Appeal 2020-005207 Application 14/391,092 4 claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 27 (arguing that independent claims 6, 11, 17, 23, 24, 26, and 28 are patentable for similar reasons asserted with respect to claim 1 and not specifically arguing the patentability of the dependent claims). Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as representative of all pending claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to make in the Briefs, are forfeit and deemed waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant argues the rejection does not demonstrate that representative claim 1 would have been obvious in view of the cited prior art because the proposed combination does not render obvious certain limitations recited in representative claim 1. Specifically, Appellant argues the art does not render obvious “deciding at the encoder whether all the pictures in the sequence of pictures of the video stream are divided in a same way by tiles using a tile structure” (the “deciding tile structure” step), “responsive to deciding the same tile structure is not being used for all the pictures throughout the sequence of pictures of the video stream, initiating transmission, to the receiving device through the transmitting hardware, third information indicating that there are tiles in the sequence without details of any of the tile structures being used”4 (the “transmitting a tile indicator” step), or “initiating transmission, to the receiving device through the transmitting hardware, fourth information providing entry point information for the tiles” (the “transmitting entry points” step). Appeal 4 We note that the Examiner and Appellant misquote the end of this limitation recited in claim 1, but we find these inadvertent typographical errors do not substantively affect the Examiner’s findings and conclusions or Appellant’s arguments. Appeal 2020-005207 Application 14/391,092 5 Br. 17-27; Reply Br. 2-6. We address each of these limitations, including the Examiner’s findings and conclusions and Appellant’s arguments applicable thereto, in turn below. THE DECIDING TILE STRUCTURE STEP The Examiner finds Fuldseth teaches or suggests the deciding tile structure step, as recited in representative claim 1. Final Act. 5-6 (citing Fuldseth ¶¶ 45, 46, 58-64, 68, Figs. 1, 4-6); Ans. 47-49 (additionally citing Fuldseth ¶¶ 54, 77, 78, Figs. 3a, 3b). The Examiner alternatively finds Schierl teaches this limitation as well. Ans. 49-50 (citing Schierl ¶¶ 94-101). Appellant argues the cited art fails to teach or suggest the deciding tile structure step recited in representative claim 1 because Fuldseth “does not indicate that the encoder was the device that chose to use” a particular tile structure and Fuldseth discloses that the encoder may specify different shaped tiles “and never decides whether all the pictures in the sequence of pictures of the video stream are divided in a same way by tiles using a tile structure.” Appeal Br. 20-24; see also, e.g., Appeal Br. 23 (arguing Fuldseth discloses “that each tile, or at least multiple tiles, in a frame has a different rectangular shape,” which “is opposite of pictures being divided in a same way”). Appellant asserts the Answer includes a new ground of rejection because the Examiner finds in the Answer, for the first time, that Schierl also teaches the deciding tile structure step. Reply Br. 3-4. Appellant also argues the cited portion of Schierl does not teach the deciding tile structure step because “[t]he ‘if’ language in paragraphs [0096] and [0097] of Schierl indicates no decision has been made or which entity would make the decision.” Reply Br. 4. Appeal 2020-005207 Application 14/391,092 6 We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. As the Examiner finds, Ans. 48-49, Fuldseth’s Figures 3a and 3b depict tiles with a fixed structure. Fuldseth, Fig. 3a. Fuldseth also describes these figures as having “an arrangement of 2x3 tiles.” Fuldseth ¶ 54. Thus, Fuldseth discloses that, in at least some embodiments, tiles all have the same structure-for example, a height of 2 and a width of 3. See Fuldseth ¶ 54, Fig. 3a. The Examiner also finds that Fuldseth discloses the encoder specifies the shape of the tiles and communicates that information to the decoder, which suggests that the encoder decides how to divide the tiles-i.e., whether the tiles all have the same structure. Final Act. 6; Ans. 47-49. We agree with the Examiner. Even if Fuldseth’s decoder specifies tile shapes that the decoder can decode, this still suggests that the encoder is dividing the frames into tiles and, therefore deciding whether to divide all pictures in a sequence using a single tile structure. Fuldseth discloses that the N and M values may be communicated from the encoder to the decoder “through sequence- or picture headers.” Fuldseth ¶ 61. The ability to transmit tile structure in the sequence header at least suggests that all pictures in a sequence could be divided using the same tile structure. To the extent Appellant is arguing that the encoder does not use the same structure for all tiles, we note that the claim recites deciding whether all pictures in a sequence are divided in a same way and does not require that the pictures are divided in the same way. Because we agree with the Examiner that Fuldseth alone teaches or suggests this limitation, we need not address the Examiner’s findings regarding Schierl alternatively teaching this limitation. Nevertheless, to the extent that Appellant asserts the Examiner’s alternative reliance on Schierl Appeal 2020-005207 Application 14/391,092 7 constitutes an undesignated new ground of rejection (see Reply Br. 3-4), we note that is a petitionable matter not properly before the Board. 37 C.F.R. § 41.40(a) (“Any request to seek review of the primary examiner’s failure to designate a rejection as a new ground of rejection in an examiner’s answer must be by way of a petition to the Director”); see also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 706.01 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, June 2020) (“[T]he Board will not hear or decide issues pertaining to objections and formal matters which are not properly before the Board.”), 1201 (“The Board will not ordinarily hear a question that should be decided by the Director on petition . . . .”). For these reasons, we find that Fuldseth and Schierl teach or suggest the deciding tile structure step recited in representative claim 1. THE TRANSMITTING A TILE INDICATOR STEP The Examiner finds the combination of Fuldseth and Schirel teaches or suggests the transmitting a tile indicator step, as recited in representative claim 1. Final Act. 8-9 (citing Fuldseth ¶ 62; Schierl ¶¶ 94-99); Ans. 46-47 (additionally citing Schierl ¶¶ 100, 101, 132, Fig. 2). Appellant argues Fuldseth and Schierl fail to teach or suggest the transmitting a tile indicator step recited in representative claim 1. Appeal Br. 17-20; Reply Br. 1-2. More specifically, Appellant contends Fuldseth describes a decoder receiving values representing the height and width of the tiles (i.e., “N” and “M”), which shows that Fuldseth’s decoder “receives information about the tile structure in different ways.” Appeal Br. 19. Appellant further asserts that Schierl fails to teach the transmitting a tile indicator step because Schierl’s encoder transmits “information about the tile structure” to the decoder. Appeal Br. 20; Reply Br. 2 (asserting that Schierl Appeal 2020-005207 Application 14/391,092 8 transmits information about the tile structure because Schierl transmits different information depending on whether the tiles are fixed or of different sizes). In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends the Examiner relied only on Fuldseth in final rejection with respect to the transmitting a tile indicator step even though Appellant argued in the Appeal Brief against the Examiner’s findings regarding Schierl’s teachings. Reply Br. 2. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Although we agree with Appellant that both Fuldseth and Schierly transmit tile structure information from the encoder to the decoder, the claims do not preclude such transmission. Rather, we understand this third information, in light of the Specification, to encompass a flag, such as the Specification’s disclosed “tiles_or_entropy_sync_idc” flag. See, e.g., Spec. 6:15-7:4. The claim recites communicating other information-at least “first information” and “fourth information”-and, as noted, does not preclude communicating other information. Similarly, the cited portions of Schierl teach sending a “number of substreams/tiles, where ‘1’ means that there is only one stream/tile which contains the whole video frame.” Schierl ¶ 95. Schierl thus teaches or suggests the transmitting a tile indicator step at least because, when the encoder signals to the decoder that number of tiles used is 1 or greater, Schierl has communicated an indication that tiles are being used, but the number of tiles does not include details regarding the structure of those tiles. The fact that Schierl and Fuldseth may transmit other information does not alter that Schierl also teaches transmitting an indicator that tiles are used without detail regarding the structure of those tiles. Accordingly, we find Schierl teaches or suggests the transmitting a tile indicator step. Appeal 2020-005207 Application 14/391,092 9 THE TRANSMITTING ENTRY POINTS STEP The Examiner finds Misra teaches or suggests the transmitting entry points step, as recited in representative claim 1 and that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) would have included this teaching to harmonize “signal entry point information for tiles in a bitstream to enable parallel processing.” Final Act. 8 (citing Misra 1-2 (Tables 2 and 3), Abstract); Ans. 50-51 (additionally citing Fuldseth ¶ 45). In particular, the Examiner finds Segall teaches signaling “syntax and semantics elements providing entry point information for the tiles” in a video stream. Final Act. 8; Ans. 50. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to incorporate this information into Fuldseth’s picture or sequence headers, which are used to transmit the tile widths and heights in order to include information useful for parallel processing portions of pictures. Final Act. 8; Ans. 51. Appellant argues that Fuldseth’s technique eliminates the need for slice headers, Fuldseth would lead a PHOSITA “away from being modified to further include Segall’s entry information that is in the slice header that is eliminated by Fuldseth” and there would have been “no reasonable expectation of success in modifying Fuldseth with the teachings of Segall.” Appeal Br. 25-27. More specifically, Appellant contends that Fuldseth discloses completely specifying frame partitioning with its tile height and width (i.e., “the numbers N and M”), which eliminates the need for slice or tile headers and requires no overhead “on a tile-by-tile or block-by-block basis.” Appeal Br. 26 (emphasis omitted). Appellant further contends “the combination of Fuldseth with Segall would not work and thus fails to disclose or suggest the” transmitting entry points step. Appeal Br. 26. Appeal 2020-005207 Application 14/391,092 10 Appellant asserts that “[a]dding a way to communicate entry point information of a tile would add overhead that Fuldseth has eliminated.” Appeal Br. 26. We agree with Appellant that Fuldseth eliminates the need to use slice headers. See, e.g., Fuldseth ¶¶ 45 (“The partitioning of a frame into tiles is completely specified by the numbers N and M, eliminating the need for a slice header.”), 64 (“When arranged in this way, tiles offer the advantage over conventional slices and slice groups in that no tile header is needed to identify tile boundaries. Moreover, there is no overhead required on a tile- by-tile or block-by-block basis to support the identification of tile boundaries.”), 77 (“the values of N and M are transmitted to the receiving device in the sequence or picture header, but not in a slice or slice group header”). However, Fuldseth includes sequence and picture headers, and the rejection proposes combining Segall’s entry point information into Fuldseth’s sequence or picture header. See Ans. 51. Appellant argues a PHOSITA would not add slice headers to Fuldseth because Fuldseth discloses that its technique eliminates the need for slice headers, but Appellant has not persuasively argued why it would not have been obvious to a PHOSITA to make the proposed combination of including the entry point information in Fuldseth’s sequence or picture headers. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the proposed combination teaches or suggests the transmitting entry points step. SUMMARY For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of representative claim 1 as obvious over Fuldseth, Tiles, Schierl, and Misra. For the same reasons, we also sustain the rejection of independent claims 6, 11, 17, 23, 24, 26, and 28 Appeal 2020-005207 Application 14/391,092 11 as well as dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-16, 18-22, 25, and 30-33, which Appellant does not argue separately with particularity, as obvious over Fuldseth, Tiles, Schierl, and Misra. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claim 34, which Appellant does not argue separately with particularity, as obvious over Fuldseth, Tiles, Schierl, Misra, and Segall. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-26, 28, 30-33 103 Fuldseth, Tiles, Schierl, Misra 1-26, 28, 30-33 34 103 Fuldseth, Tiles, Schierl, Misra, Segall 34 Overall Outcome 1-26, 28, 30-34 RESPONSE Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED