VID SCALE, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 19, 2022

2020004408 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 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. 13/755,460 01/31/2013 Yong He IDVC_11252US02 5916 15800 7590 01/19/2022 Condo Roccia Koptiw LLP 1800 JFK Boulevard Suite 1700 Philadelphia, PA 19103 EXAMINER ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/19/2022 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YONG HE, YAN YE, GEORGE W. McCLELLAN, and JIE DONG Appeal 2020-004408 Application 13/755,460 Technology Center 2400 Before TERRY J. OWENS, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. RANGE, 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, 3, 5, 13, 15, 17, and 24-31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “VID SCALE, Inc., which is a subsidiary of InterDigital, Inc.” Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-004408 Application 13/755,460 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2 Appellant explains that High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) “is a video compression standard being developed” as a successor to the H.264 (MPEG-4 part 10) standard for digital video compression. Spec. ¶¶ 2-3. The Specification explains that its embodiments contemplate “inter-layer prediction for HEVC scalable coding, temporal reference picture signaling design for HEVC scalable coding, inter-layer reference picture signaling design for HEVC scalable coding, and/or inter-layer reference picture list construction processes.” Id. ¶ 5. Claim 1 is illustrative, and we reproduce it below: 1. A decoding device for video data coding, comprising: a memory comprising at least one decoded picture buffer (DPB) comprising a plurality of decoded pictures; a receiver, the receiver configured at least in part to: receive video data that comprises a current enhancement layer and a plurality of reference layers of the current enhancement layer, and receive an inter-layer reference picture number indicator associated with a current enhancement layer picture; and a processor, the processor configured at least in part to: construct, based on a picture order count (POC) number of the current enhancement layer picture, an inter-layer reference picture set (RPS) for the current enhancement layer picture that comprise a plurality of decoded pictures at a same time instance as the current enhancement layer picture from the plurality of reference layers of the current enhancement layer; 2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated April 24, 2019 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed October 15, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated March 4, 2020 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Mary 4, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2020-004408 Application 13/755,460 3 determine, based on the inter-layer reference picture number indicator associated with the current enhancement layer picture that indicates a number of inter-layer reference pictures from the inter-layer RPS to be used for predicting of the current enhancement layer picture, the number of inter-layer reference pictures from the interlayer RPS to be used for predicting of the current enhancement layer picture; identify, based on the determining, at least one inter-layer reference picture from the inter-layer RPS to be used for predicting of the current enhancement layer picture; combine the at least one identified inter-layer reference picture from the interlayer RPS with one or more temporal enhancement layer reference pictures to form a reference picture list for the current enhancement layer picture; and reconstruct the current enhancement layer picture for display based on the reference picture list. Appeal Br. 3 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims on appeal: Name Reference Date Wenger et al. (“Wenger”) US 2007/0033494 Feb. 8, 2007 Hong et al. (“Hong”) US 2012/0183060 A1 July 19, 2012 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal: A. Claims 1, 3, 5, 13, 15, 17, and 24-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Ans. 3. Appeal 2020-004408 Application 13/755,460 4 B. Claims 1, 3, 5, 13, 15, 17, and 24-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Hong in view of Applicant’s admitted prior art (“AAPA”) and in view of Wenger. Id. at 4. OPINION To resolve the issues before us on appeal, we focus on the Examiner’s findings and determinations that relate to the error Appellant identifies. Rejection A, written description. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 5, 13, 15, 17, and 24-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Ans. 3. In particular, the Examiner finds that the Specification “does not support a plurality of reference pictures at the same time instance” and instead is only “support for enhancement layer data (not individual pictures).” Final Act. 3. Appellant identifies Figure 6 and paragraph 87 of the Specification as providing support for a plurality of reference pictures at the same time instance. Appeal Br. 17-18. We agree with Appellant that the Specification provides adequate written description support. In particular, paragraph 87 states that “[t]he reconstructed picture from the lower layer may be up- sampled to match [the] enhancement layer’s spatial resolution as reference picture for inter-layer prediction.” Spec. ¶ 87 (emphasis added). The same paragraph also indicates that Figures 6 and 7 “show exemplary inter-layer prediction coding structures for spatial scalability and combined temporal/spatial scalability” and that “one or more, or each, layer may have Appeal 2020-004408 Application 13/755,460 5 different spatial resolution.” Id. The layers having “spatial resolution” reasonably supports that the layers may be pictures. The Examiner does not persuasively dispute the Appellant’s position in the Answer. For the reasons above, we do not sustain this rejection. Rejection 2, obviousness. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 5, 13, 15, 17, and 24-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Hong in view of Applicant’s admitted prior art (“AAPA”) and in view of Wenger. Ans. 4. The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.”). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art or the inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would have employed. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Claim 1 recites a receiver configured to “receive an inter-layer reference picture indicator associated with a current enhancement layer picture.” Appeal Br. 3 (Claims App.). Claim 1’s stated purpose of the inter- layer reference picture indicator is to “indicate[] a number of inter-layer reference pictures from the inter-layer RPS to be used for predicting of the current enhancement layer picture.” Id. Independent claim 13 recites similar language. Appeal 2020-004408 Application 13/755,460 6 The Examiner finds that Hong teaches an inter-layer reference picture indicator. Final Act. 14, 16-17; Ans. 17-18. Appellant argues that the Examiner has not adequately established that Hong teaches an inter-layer reference picture indicator having the functionality the claims require. Appeal Br. 14-16. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner does not adequately explain how the cited references teach or suggest the claims’ inter-layer reference picture indicator recitations. The Examiner refers to Hong paragraph 4 to address the inter-layer reference picture indicator. Ans. 17-18. Hong paragraph 4, however, merely teaches that “[t]he number of reference pictures stored in the decoder can be limited by profiles and levels of H.264.” Hong ¶ 4. Hong’s explanation that the number of pictures that may be stored is limited is not the same as providing the number of inter-layer reference pictures from the inter-layer RPS to be used for the purpose recited by claims 1 and 13. The Examiner does not adequately explain how paragraph four or any other portion of Hong teaches or suggests receiving an inter-layer reference picture number indicator “that indicates a number of inter-layer reference pictures from the inter-layer RPS to be used for predicting of the current enhancement layer picture” as claims 1 and 13 require. We, thus, do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Appeal 2020-004408 Application 13/755,460 7 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 5, 13, 15, 17, 24- 31 112 Written description 1, 3, 5, 13, 15, 17, 24- 31 1, 3, 5, 13, 15, 17, 24- 31 103 Hong, AAPA, Wenger 1, 3, 5, 13, 15, 17, 24- 31 Overall Outcome 1, 3, 5, 13, 15, 17, 24- 31 REVERSED