TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 1, 2022

2021000821 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 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. 15/460,037 03/15/2017 Minhua Zhou TI-70742B 9943 23494 7590 03/01/2022 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED P O BOX 655474, MS 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 EXAMINER AYNALEM, NATHNAEL B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2488 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2022 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): uspto@ti.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MINHUA ZHOU Appeal 2021-000821 Application 15/460,037 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges. LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Examiner rejects claims 13-16 and 18 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims. 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 Texas Instruments Incorporated. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-000821 Application 15/460,037 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Examiner rejects claims 13-16 and 18 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Panchal,2 Applicant’s admitted prior art disclosure,3 and Lin.4 Final Act. 4. Independent claims 13, 16, and 18 are appealed. Claim 13 is illustrative and reproduced below (annotated with bracketed numbers for reference to the limitations in the claim): 13. A video decoder comprising: an entropy decoder having an output; a motion compensation component in communication with the entropy decoder; the video decoder configured to: [1] determine a quadtree in a first picture; [2] determine a coding unit in the quadtree; [3] determine a prediction unit [PU] for a portion of the coding unit; [4] select at least some motion data of a first temporal motion data candidate block, located in a bottom right neighboring position outside of a co-located PU in a reference picture when available; [5] when the motion data of the first temporal motion data candidate block is not available, select at least some motion data of a second temporal motion data candidate block, located in a bottom right neighboring position inside the co-located prediction unit in the reference picture when available; [6] generate decoded frames of image data for display. 2 Panchal et al., US 2011/0206123 A1, published Aug. 25, 2011 (“Panchal”). 3 Applicant’s admitted prior art (“AAPA”) as disclosed in the Specification. 4 Lin et al., US 8,711,940 B2, issued Apr. 29, 2014 (“Lin”). Appeal 2021-000821 Application 15/460,037 3 REJECTION Claim 13 is directed to a video decoder comprising an entropy decoder and a motion compensation component. The video decoder is “configured to” carry out six steps, which we have numbered [1] to [6]. The Examiner finds that the Panchal reference describes a video decoder with the recited entropy decoder and a motion compensation component. Final Act. 4 (citing Panchal ¶¶ 78, 79, Fig. 4). The Examiner also finds that Panchal discloses [1] determining a quadtree in a first picture, [2] determining a coding unit in the quadtree, and [3] determining a prediction unit (PU) for a portion of the coding unit as recited in the first three steps of the claim. Id. at 4-5 (citing Panchal ¶¶ 37, 38, 84). The Examiner also finds that Panchal describes the last step of claim 13 of [6] generating decoded frames of image data for display. Id. at 5 (citing Panchal ¶ 32). Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s findings with respect to these steps of claim 13. Step [4] of claim 13 recites “select[ing] at least some motion data of a first temporal motion data candidate block, located in a bottom right neighboring position outside of a co-located PU in a reference picture when available.” The Examiner finds this step is admitted to be prior art in the Specification (AAPA). Final Act. 5; see supra note 3. Specifically, the Examiner cites paragraph 34 of the Specification disclosing: “To choose the co-located temporal merging candidate, the co-located temporal motion data from the bottom right TMD [temporal motion data] position (see 3 (BR) in Fig. 2, outside the co-located PU 202) is first checked and selected for the temporal merging candidate if available.” The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Appeal 2021-000821 Application 15/460,037 4 invention to apply the AAPA’s teachings to those of Panchal to improve coding efficiency. Final Act. 6. Step [5] of claim 13 recites, “when the motion data of the first temporal motion data candidate block is not available, select at least some motion data of a second temporal motion data candidate block, located in a bottom right neighboring position inside the co-located prediction unit in the reference picture when available.” (Emphasis added.) The Examiner again turns to the AAPA in the Specification. Final Act. 5-6. Paragraph 34 of the Specification discloses: “Otherwise, the co-located temporal motion data at the upper left central TMD position (see 3 (CR) in Fig. 2) is checked and selected for the temporal merging candidate if available.” (Emphasis added.) The Specification does not disclose that the motion data for the second temporal block is “located in a bottom right neighboring position inside the co-located prediction unit in the reference picture when available” as required by step [5] of claim 13. For this limitation, the Examiner relies on Lin. Final Act. 6 (citing Lin 6:1-25; 7:23-64). The Examiner finds it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Panchal’s teachings and the AAPA’s teachings with those of Lin to increase coding efficiency. Final Act. 6 (citing Lin 2:2-12). ANALYSIS Appellant begins its challenge to the rejection of claim 13 by stating that “Lin teaches the use of a single temporal candidate, selected from a particular location, within the current PU 210.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant does not explain the relevance of this statement to the claim’s limitations. Nonetheless, claim 13 employs a video decoder configured to use first and Appeal 2021-000821 Application 15/460,037 5 second temporal motion data candidate blocks in steps [4] and [5], respectively. The Examiner finds that the AAPA in Applicant’s Specification discloses using two temporal block candidates. Final Act. 5-6. Appellant’s apparent argument that Lin only discloses one temporal candidate is directed at the wrong reference because the Examiner finds that two temporal motion data block candidates are disclosed in the AAPA. See Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (rejecting argument directed at the wrong reference). In contrast, the Examiner relies on Lin for its disclosure of selecting motion data “located in a bottom right neighboring position inside the co-located prediction unit in the reference picture when available” as recited in step [5] of claim 13, a finding not disputed by Appellant. Appellant contends that the Examiner’s reason for combining the AAPA’s and Panchal’s teachings with those of Lin “is directly contrary to the facts of record in this application.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant explains: While paragraph [0004] states, “HEVC is expected to provide around 50% improvement in coding efficiency over the current standard, H.264/AVC, as well as larger resolutions and higher frame rates” the inventor in the present application stated “The measured BD-rate penalty is 0.1 % in RA-HE and RA-LC, 0.2% in LB-HE and LB-LC for configuration 1, and 0.2% in RA-HE and RA-LC, 0.3% in LB-HE and LB-LC for configuration 2.” (Abstract, page 1 of Minhua Zhow [sic, Zhou], “Non-CE9: Modified H Positions for Memory Bandwidth Reduction in TMVP Derivation,” JCTVC-G082, November 19-30, 2011, pp. 1-10, Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, Geneva, Switzerland, of record in this application.) Appeal Br. 6-7. Appeal 2021-000821 Application 15/460,037 6 Based on this statement from the Zhou publication (“Non-CE9: Modified H positions for memory bandwidth reduction in TMVP derivation”) (hereinafter, “Zhou”), Appellant argues that “the Examiner’s stated motivation to increase coding efficiency appears to actually teach away from the Examiner’s proposed combination as the inventor’s proposed solution is said to result in a bit data rate penalty.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant’s argument does not demonstrate an error in the rejection. The rejection is based on AAPA and Lin. As explained above, Lin is cited by the Examiner as describing step [5] of rejected claim 13 to make up for the deficiency in AAPA (i.e., Lin discloses selecting motion data “located in a bottom right neighboring position inside the co-located prediction unit in the reference picture when available.”). Appellant states that the skilled worker would not have adopted the “inventor’s proposed solution” because of its BD-rate penalty described in Zhou. Our understanding of Appellant’s argument is that the “inventor’s proposed solution” is the same disclosure that the Examiner relies upon in Lin; otherwise the “solution” would be part of the AAPA. For Zhou to “teach away from the Examiner’s proposed combination” and “the proposed solution,” it must teach the same step disclosed in Lin because Lin describes the only step missing from the AAPA. Our difficulty with this argument is that Appellant does not identify “the inventor’s proposed solution” in Zhou. Appellant simply points to the statement in Zhou about the BD-rate penalty without identifying what step in Zhou, when carried out, results in this penalty value. Appellant does not, for example, establish that Zhou discloses that selecting motion data “located in a bottom right neighboring position inside the co-located prediction unit in the reference picture when available,” Appeal 2021-000821 Application 15/460,037 7 the same step described in Lin, results in Zhou’s BD-penalty rate. For this reason, we conclude that Appellant has not explained adequately the relevance of Zhou’s disclosure to the rejection. Nonetheless, even if Zhou’s statement about BD-rate penalty is a reference to the missing disclosure from Panchal’s and AAPA’s teachings, it still is insufficient to establish the non-obviousness of the claimed subject matter. A “teaching away” requires a reference to actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed”). Appellant does not explain how the recited BD-rate penalties described in Zhou would have discouraged one of ordinary skill in the art from applying Lin’s teachings to the combined teachings of Panchal and AAPA. Simply because the step described in Lin might be inferior by having the BD-rate penalty described in Zhou, “does not mean that” the “inferior combination” of Lin’s teachings with those of Panchal and AAPA “is inapt for obviousness purposes.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “[A] reference may teach away from a use when that use would render the result inoperable.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Appellant does not provide evidence that employing a step with the BD-rate penalty described by Zhou would make the combination as a whole inoperable. For the foregoing reasons, the obviousness rejection of claim 13 is affirmed. Appeal 2021-000821 Application 15/460,037 8 Claims 16, 18 Appellant repeats the same unpersuasive arguments for claims 16 and 18 that it made for claim 13. Appeal Br. 8-10, 11-14. For the same reasons discussed above, the obviousness rejection of claims 16 and 18 is affirmed. Claims 14, 15 Claims 14 and 15 are not argued separately and fall with claim 13. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 13-16 and 18 as obvious is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 13-16, 18 103(a) Panchal, AAPA, Lin 13-16, 18 TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED