Vid Scale, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 23, 2022

2021000378 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 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. 14/759,428 07/07/2015 Xiaoyu Xiu IDVC_11667US02 7367 15800 7590 02/23/2022 Condo Roccia Koptiw LLP 1800 JFK Boulevard Suite 1700 Philadelphia, PA 19103 EXAMINER MAHMUD, FARHAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/23/2022 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 XIAOYU XIU, YONG HE, YUWEN HE, and YAN YE Appeal 2021-000378 Application 14/759,428 Technology Center 2400 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, 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 27-32, 34-42, and 44-46. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as VID SCALE, INC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-000378 Application 14/759,428 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to motion information signaling for scalable video coding. Claim 27, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 27. A video encoding method comprising: a video encoding device generating a video bitstream comprising a plurality of base layer pictures and a plurality of corresponding enhancement layer pictures; the video encoding device identifying a prediction unit (PU) associated with one of the plurality of enhancement layer pictures; the video encoding device determining whether the PU uses an inter-layer reference picture as a reference picture; the video encoding device determining whether to set a motion vector associated with the PU to a value indicative of zero motion based on whether the PU uses the inter-layer reference picture as the reference picture, wherein on a condition that the PU uses the inter-layer reference picture as the reference picture, the motion vector associated with the PU is set to a value zero; and the video encoding device including the motion vector associated with the PU having the value zero in the video bitstream for sending to a video decoding device for predicting the PU associated with the enhancement layer picture that uses the inter-layer reference picture as the reference picture. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Han US 2005/0226334 A1 Oct. 13, 2005 Yu US 2013/0003851 Al Jan. 3, 2013 Hong US 2013/0003847 A1 Jan. 3, 2013 Chen US 2012/0075436 A1 Mar. 29, 2012 Appeal 2021-000378 Application 14/759,428 3 REJECTIONS Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 27-32, 36-42, 46 103 Hong, Chen, Han 34, 35, 44, 45 103 Hong, Chen, Han, Yu OPINION 1. Do the combined teachings of Hong, Chen and Han teach or suggest the limitation of "the video encoding device determining whether to set a motion vector associated with the PU to a value indicative of zero motion based on whether the PU uses the inter-layer reference picture as the reference picture" as recited in claim 27 and similarly recited in claim 37? Appellant argues that the combined teachings of Hong, Chen and Han teach or suggest the limitation of “the video encoding device determining whether to set a motion vector associated with the PU to a value indicative of zero motion based on whether the PU uses the inter-layer reference picture as the reference picture” as recited in claim 27 and similarly recited in claim 37. See Appeal Br. 9-12. In particular, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance on Hong, paragraph 10, is misplaced because Hong is completely silent about a Prediction Unit (i.e., PU) using an inter-layer reference picture as a reference picture or setting a motion vector information of a PU to a value zero based on the PU using an inter-layer reference picture as a reference picture. Appeal Br. 10. We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. “During examination, ‘claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim language should be read in light of the Appeal 2021-000378 Application 14/759,428 4 specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Appellant describes, as it pertains to the disputed limitation, that in a scalable system with more than one layer, the motion vector associated with a prediction unit (“PU”) of an enhancement layer is set to zero motion, when the PU uses an inter-layer reference picture as a reference picture. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant explains that, in independent claims 27 and 37, a video encoding device may generate a bitstream comprising a base layer as indicated by 2002 in Figure 2 (reproduced below) and an enhancement layer illustrated as 2006. Id. The video encoding device may identify a PU associated with the enhancement layer 2006. Id. Figure 2 is reproduced below: Figure 2 shows prediction of an enhancement layer 2006 may be formed by motion-compensated prediction from a reconstructed base layer signal 2004 (i.e., after up-sampling the base layer signal 2002 at 2008, if the spatial Appeal 2021-000378 Application 14/759,428 5 resolutions between the two layers are different). Spec. para. 32. The prediction of the enhancement layer 2006 may be formed by temporal prediction within the current enhancement layer and/or by averaging a base layer reconstruction with a temporal prediction signal. Id. Appellant points us to its Specification paragraph 32 for the explanation of the “zero motion.” Appeal Br. 7. According to the Specification, there may be zero motion between the corresponding regions of the enhancement layer picture and the inter-layer reference picture. Spec. para. 32. In other cases, the PU signaling may allow the enhancement layer picture to use non-zero motion vectors, for example, when referring to the interlayer reference picture for motion prediction. Id. As explained by Appellant, the video encoding device may perform prediction of the PU of the enhancement layer (2006) by using an up- sampled picture that may be generated by up-sampling (2008) a base layer picture (2002). Appeal Br. 6-7. When the PU of the enhancement layer picture refers to an inter-layer reference picture for motion compensated prediction, due to high correlation between the enhancement layer picture and the inter-layer reference picture, for example, zero motion may be assumed between the corresponding regions of the enhancement layer picture and the inter-layer reference picture. Appeal Br. 7. The Examiner, consistent with Appellant’s Specification, cites in pertinent part to paragraphs 57-62 and 8-10 of Hong. Final Act. 3 (citing Han paras. 57-62, 8-10); see also Han Fig. 3. Hong teaches in reference to Figure 3 a base layer decoder (i.e., 301) and an enhancement layer decoder (i.e., 302). Hong para. 59. Appeal 2021-000378 Application 14/759,428 6 Figure 3 is reproduced below: Figure 3 shows a decoder that can include a base layer decoder (301) and an enhancement layer decoder (302) wherein the base layer decoder (301) can generate from the base layer bitstream (308), as part of its decoding process and among other things such as reconstructed picture samples (309), which can be upscaled by upscale unit (310) and input in upsampled form (311) in the enhancement layer encoder (302). Hong para. 59. Additionally, the base layer decoder (301) can create side information (303), which can be upscaled by an upscale unit (304) to reflect the picture size ratio between base layer and enhancement layer. Id. Hong teaches that the enhancement layer decoder (302) can include a motion vector decoding module (306), configured to create for a PU, a motion vector that can be used for motion compensation of the enhancement layer decoder (302). Hong para. 60. Hong teaches inter-layer motion prediction wherein the upscaled Appeal 2021-000378 Application 14/759,428 7 information is used “as is” and the motion vectors are derived directly from the base layer. Hong para. 8. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that using the upscaled information as-is, essentially nullifies the coding of the enhancement layer’s motion. See Final Act. 3 (citing paras. 8-10). Additionally, Hong’s paragraph 10 recites: In SVC [scalable video coding], motion vectors are coded in the bitstream as the difference between the motion vector found by the search algorithm and the motion vector predictor. The predictor can be computed as the median of the motion vectors of three neighboring blocks, if the neighbors are available. If a particular neighbor is unavailable, e.g. coded as intra, or outside the boundaries of the picture or slice, a different neighbor position is substituted, or a value of (0,0) is substituted. Hong para. 10 (emphasis added). Thus, consistent with Appellant’s Specification, Hong teaches or suggests that the base layer bitstream (308) is upsampled to the enhancement layer decoder (302) where a PU uses motion vectors for compensation of the enhancement layer (302, 307). See Hong Fig. 3 and paras. 10, 57, 59, 60. Hong further teaches or suggests that the PU can use an inter-layer reference picture and the motion vector can have a value zero (i.e., value of (0, 0)). See Hong paras. 8-10, 57. Thus, Hong teaches or suggests that one of the motion vectors that can be used, when the PU uses the inter-layer reference picture, is a motion vector of zero. See Hong Fig. 3 and paras. 8-10, 59, 60. Where the claimed subject matter is no more than “the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement,” and, the combination does no more than yield predictable results, the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 Appeal 2021-000378 Application 14/759,428 8 U.S. 398, 401 (2007). In the instant case, Hong teaches or suggests using an inter-layer reference picture as a reference picture and setting motion vectors associated with the PU for compensation of the upsampled enhancement layer, and Hong further teaches or suggests that the motion vector can be zero. See Hong Fig. 3 and paras. 8-10, 57. Accordingly, we disagree with Appellant’s argument that the whole Hong reference is completely silent about a PU using an inter-layer reference picture as a reference picture or setting a motion vector information of a PU to a value zero based on the PU using an inter-layer reference picture as a reference picture. Furthermore, we separately and additionally conclude that the disputed limitation in independent method claim 27, and as similarly recited in independent method claim 36, recites a conditional limitation by stating “whether to set a motion vector associated with the PU to a value indicative of zero motion based on whether the PU uses the inter-layer reference picture as the reference picture, wherein on a condition that the PU uses the inter-layer reference picture as the reference picture, the motion vector associated with the PU is set to a value zero.” See claim 27. Claim 27’s (and similarly recited claim 36) condition is that the PU uses the inter-layer reference picture as a reference picture. See claims 27, 36. In method claims, a step reciting a condition does not need to be performed if the condition is not met. See Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792, at *3-4 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential). See also MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (MPEP) § 2111.04(II) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018) (citing Schulhauser); In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “[O]ptional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted.” Gary M. Katz, Appeal No. 2010- Appeal 2021-000378 Application 14/759,428 9 006083, 2011 WL 1211248, at *2 (BPAI Mar. 25, 2011) (citing In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). As a result, we conclude that the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 27 (and similarly recited claim 36) is that the conditional limitation need not occur. Thus, even if Hong did not teach the disputed limitation, we would still affirm method claims 27 and 36, as well as dependent method claims 27-32 and 34-35, because the recited conditional limitation of the PU using an inter-layer reference picture as a reference picture does not need to be met. See Ex parte Schulhauser. 2. The Examiner’s findings regarding the Han teachings Appellant argues that the Examiner’s cherry picking of different features has failed to provide any reasoning between the action and the very condition on which the action depends. See Appeal Br. 12-14. Because we agree with the Examiner that Hong teaches the disputed limitation as discussed above, any additional findings by the Examiner relying on Han are cumulative and we need not reach them. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 27-32, 34-42, and 44-46 for the reasons stated above.2 2 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may want to consider whether claims 27 and 36 recite both an apparatus and method steps. “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II) (citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Although the Board is authorized to enter a new ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02. Appeal 2021-000378 Application 14/759,428 10 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 27-32, 34-42, and 44-46 are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 27-32, 36- 42, 46 103 Hong, Chen, Han 27-32, 36- 42, 46 34, 35, 44, 45 103 Hong, Chen, Han, Yu 34, 35, 44, 45 Overall Outcome 27-32, 34- 42, 44-46 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). AFFIRMED