Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 10, 2022

2020004903 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 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. 15/804,774 11/06/2017 Rickard Sjöberg 1009-2368 / P037249US03 1645 102721 7590 01/10/2022 Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson PO BOX 1959 Cary, NC 27572-1959 EXAMINER KIR, ALBERT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2485 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/10/2022 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): official@mbhiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICKARD SJÖBERG and JONATAN SAMUELSSON Appeal 2020-004903 Application 15/804,774 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ERIC S. FRAHM, and CATHERINE SHIANG, 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, 2, 4-9, 11-13, 15-20, and 22-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 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 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ). Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-004903 Application 15/804,774 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an encoder, decoder, and methods thereof for video encoding and decoding. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method performed by an encoder for encoding a current picture of a video stream, according to a scheme in which one or more previously decoded pictures are used as reference pictures for decoding and according to a scheme in which the encoder indicates to a decoder, in a reference picture set (RPS), which of the one or more previously decoded pictures in a decoded picture buffer (DPB) are reference pictures, wherein the RPS indicates each of the reference pictures by a respective picture order count (POC) value, said method comprising: determining, for each long-term picture indication i of the RPS of the current picture, whether there are at least two reference pictures in the DPB with a least significant bit (lsb) of the POC, denoted as “POC lsb,” equal to POC lsb indicated for said long-term picture indication i; and responsive to determining that there are at least two reference pictures in the DPB with POC lsb equal to the POC lsb indicated for the long-term picture indication i, setting a parameter indicating that the long-term picture indication i should be indicated by the full POC; and sending the current picture and the RPS with said parameter to the decoder. Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App.). Appeal 2020-004903 Application 15/804,774 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Marcellin et al. US 2006/0056706 A1 Mar. 16, 2006 Deshpande ’709 US 2013/0188709 A1 July 25, 2013 Chiariglione CODING OF MOVING PICTURES AND AUDIO (Report of 99th meeting) ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 N12454, 1- 429 Feb. 2012 Deshpande et al. AHG21: Comments on Signaling of Reference Pictures, JCT-VC of ITU-T SG16 WP3 & ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, Document: JCTVC- H0531, 1-4 Feb. 10, 2012 REJECTIONS2 Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 11-13, 15-17, 20, and 22-24 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Deshpande ’709. Claims 2, 4, 13, 15, and 21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Deshpande ’709 in view of Chiariglione (referring to Deshpande et al. (JCTVC-H0531)). 2 Claims 1, 6, 12, 17, 23, and 24 stood rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claim 27, 32, 38, 43, 49, and 50 of U.S. Patent No. 9,838,706 B2, but Appellant filed a terminal disclaimer on December 30, 2019, which was approved on January 12, 2020. As a result, the double patenting rejection is moot. Appeal 2020-004903 Application 15/804,774 4 Claims 7, 8, 18, and 19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Deshpande ’709 in view of Marcellin. OPINION 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Independent claims 1, 12, and 23 We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be forfeit. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Each of independent claims 1, 12, and 23 includes the similar claim language regarding the “setting a parameter” indicating that the long-term picture indication i should be indicated by the full POC in the encoding claims and “determining that both the received parameter indicates that the long-term picture indication i should be indicated by the POC lsb” in the decoding claims. We select independent claim 1 as the illustrative claim and address Appellant’s arguments thereto. Appeal 2020-004903 Application 15/804,774 5 In the Reply Brief, Appellant acknowledges some confusion regarding the Deshpande ’709 reference as it applies to the “determining” step, and “[c]orrecting this argument would likely further confuse the issues. Accordingly, without conceding that Desphande [sic] discloses the limitation as claimed, the Appellant waives the argument that Deshpande fails to disclose the ‘determining’ step of claim 1. The remainder of this Reply Brief thus focuses on the ‘setting a parameter’ step of claim 1.” Reply Br. 7. As a result, we limit our review to the arguments regarding the “setting a parameter” step. “[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). [A]s an initial matter, the PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). To anticipate, “it is not enough that the prior art reference discloses part of the claimed invention, which an ordinary artisan might supplement to make the whole, or that it includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). [U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited Appeal 2020-004903 Application 15/804,774 6 in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” Id. “The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies” in the cited references. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). Appellant argues that the Deshpande reference does not disclose the “setting a parameter” step of independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 23, Reply Br. 7. Appellant further argues the question then becomes whether Deshpande ’709’s encoder, in response to this determination, sets a parameter indicating that the long-term picture indication should be indicated by its full POC, to avoid an ambiguity. Reply Br. 7. Appellant further argues that the Deshpande ’709 reference does not disclose the use of the claimed parameter, and the teachings in Deshpande ’709 discussed in the Final Office Action and Examiner’s Answer are in no sense “a parameter indicating that the long-term picture indication i should be indicated by the full POC.” Reply Br. 7. Appellant reproduces the cited portions of the Deshpande ’709 reference and argues that Deshpande ’709 is describing a solution to a related, but similar problem of ambiguity that can arise in a reference picture set (RPS) if long-term picture indications are encoded using only least- significant-bits (LSBs) of the indicated picture/frame, as the RPS may need to refer to two different reference pictures/frames that have the same LSBs. Reply Br. 9. Appellant also argues that Deshpande ’709’s solution does not address the problem by reverting to the use of full picture-order counts Appeal 2020-004903 Application 15/804,774 7 (POCs), and does not include the use of a parameter indicating that a given long-term picture indication “should be indicated by the full POC.” Reply Br. 9. Appellant paraphrases the problems and solutions addressed in paragraphs 59-62 of the Deshpande ’709 reference, and Appellant argues that those portions do not provide “any suggestion that the full POC is used.” Reply Br. 9-10. Appellant argues that the Deshpande ’709 reference describes a solution in which the LSB alone may be used most of the time, with that LSB occasionally augmented by an index that indicates how many cycles back are meant using the LSB. Reply Br. 10. Appellant further argues that because Deshpande ’709’s solution does not use the full POC to indicate a picture, Deshpande ’709’s solution clearly does not include “setting a parameter indicating that the long-term picture indication i should be indicated by the full POC.” Reply Br. 10. The Examiner finds that Deshpande ’709’s abbreviated picture indications, which include “an indication/index among a number of reference frames of the RPS” are “essentially equivalent to the full POC as each of the reference pictures with the same POS LSB can be identified and distinguished from . . . another with such technique.” Final Act. 3; Ans. 7 (arguing “functionally equivalent”); see also Advisory Act. 2. Appellant argues that the Deshpande ’709 reference does not (and cannot) identify where that parameter can be found in Deshpande, and is thus left with only the misplaced (and incorrect) argument that Deshpande’s abbreviated signaling format is “‘essentially equivalent’ to a full POC.” Appeal Br. 24; Reply Br. 14. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance upon parameters that are “functionally equivalent” to the full POC is Appeal 2020-004903 Application 15/804,774 8 evidence of error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection because Deshpande ’709’s parameters are not the full POCs, as the Examiner’s Answer acknowledges, but they are a (shortened) alternative to using the full POC. Reply Br. 14. Appellant further argues that Deshpande ’709’s technique can achieve the same result, i.e., unambiguously identifying reference pictures under most practical circumstances, it is not “equivalent,” because it uses fewer bits to do so than the use of the full POC would. Reply Br. 14. We agree with Appellant and find that the Examiner is relying upon an unreasonable broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language and is further speculating as to in equivalence of the disclosure of the Deshpande ’709 reference which is not expressly disclosed within the four corners of the Deshpande ’709 reference as required for the anticipation rejection. As a result, we find Appellant has identified error in the Examiner’s factual findings to support the anticipation rejection of illustrative independent claim 1 and corresponding independent claims 12 and 23 which contain the same limitations.3 Independent claims 6, 17, and 24 We note that independent claims 6, 17, and 24 are directed to a decoder for decoding a current picture of a video stream, where previously decoded pictures are used as reference pictures for decoding and the decoder 3 We make no findings regarding the obviousness of the claimed invention based upon the Deshpande reference alone or in combination with any additional reference because the Examiner has not relied upon obviousness for the rejection of each of the independent claims. Appeal 2020-004903 Application 15/804,774 9 receives, in a reference picture set (RPS) from an encoder, an indication as to which previously decoded pictures are reference pictures in a decoded picture buffer (DPB), and where the RPS indicates the reference pictures by a respective picture order count (POC) value. The method includes the steps of: receiving, for each long-term picture indication i in the RPS, a parameter that indicates whether the long-term picture should be indicated by the full POC or by the least significant bit (lsb) of the POC, denoted as “POC lsb”; and determining that the video stream is erroneous in response to determining that both the received parameter indicates that the long-term picture indication i should be indicated by the POC lsb and that there is more than one reference picture in the DPB with POC lsb equal to the POC lsb indicated for the long-term picture indication i. Appeal Br. 25-26 (emphasis omitted). Appellant does not set forth separate arguments for patentability. As a result, we select independent claim 6 as the illustrative claim and address Appellant’s arguments thereto. Independent claims 17 and 24 contain similar claim limitations. The Examiner rejects the decoder claims based upon the same portions of the Deshpande reference as discussed above with the encoding claims for the step of “receiving . . . a parameter that indicates whether the long-term picture should be indicated by the full POC.” See Final Act. 10- 11. Because the Examiner has not identified how the Deshpande ’709 reference discloses “a parameter that indicates whether the long-term picture should be indicated by the full POC,” we find Appellant has identified error Appeal 2020-004903 Application 15/804,774 10 in the Examiner’s factual findings to support the anticipation rejection of illustrative independent claim 6 and corresponding independent claims 17 and 24 forth the same reasons. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Dependent claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 13, 15, 18, 19, and 214 The Examiner does not make any additional findings that Chiariglione or Marcellin remedies the noted deficiency in the Deshpande ’709 reference. As a result, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejections of the dependent claims. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 11-13, 15- 17, 20, 22- 24 102(e) Deshpande ’709 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 11-13, 15- 17, 20, 22- 24 2, 4, 13, 15, 21 103(a) Deshpande ’709, Chiariglione 2, 4, 13, 15, 21 7, 8, 18, 19 103(a) Deshpande ’709, Marcellin 7, 8, 18, 19 4 We note that the Examiner has rejected dependent claims 2, 4, 13, and 15 based upon both anticipation and obviousness. Appeal 2020-004903 Application 15/804,774 11 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4-9, 11-13, 15- 20, 21, 22- 24 REVERSED