Ying Chen et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 23, 2022

2020005333 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 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. 13/553,617 07/19/2012 Ying Chen 1010-841US01/111677 8463 15150 7590 03/23/2022 Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A. 1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100 Woodbury, MN 55125 EXAMINER ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/23/2022 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): ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte YING CHEN and MARTA KARCZEWICZ ____________________ Appeal 2020-005333 Application 13/553,617 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JASON M. REPKO, 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 1-5, 7-9, 19-23, 25, 28-32, 34-36, 46-50, and 52. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 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 Qualcomm Incorporated. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-005333 Application 13/553,617 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention generally relates to coding (i.e., encoding and decoding) three-dimensional (3D) video. Spec. ¶ 2. In particular, Appellant’s invention reuses syntax elements from a slice header for a first component of a view when encoding or decoding a second component of the same view. Spec. ¶¶ 7-10. Claims 1, 19, 28, and 46 are independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A method of decoding video data, the method comprising: receiving, for a particular view in a particular access unit of a plurality of access units included in a coded video bitstream, a texture slice for a texture view component associated with one or more coded blocks of video data representative of texture information, the texture slice comprising the one or more coded blocks and a texture slice header comprising syntax elements representative of characteristics of the texture slice including values for syntax elements related to reference picture list construction for the texture slice; receiving, for the same particular view in the same particular access unit of the plurality of access units included in the coded video bitstream, a depth slice for a depth view component associated with one or more coded blocks of depth information corresponding to the one or more coded blocks of video data representative of texture information, wherein the depth slice comprises the one or more coded blocks of depth information and a depth slice header comprising syntax elements representative of characteristics of the depth slice; decoding, based at least in part on the values of the syntax elements related to reference picture list construction for the texture slice included in the received texture slice header, the texture slice; receiving, in a slice header extension of the depth slice, a reference picture prediction syntax element that indicates whether syntax elements related to reference picture list construction for the depth slice are predicted from the syntax Appeal 2020-005333 Application 13/553,617 3 elements related to reference picture list construction for the texture slice; and where the reference picture prediction syntax element indicates that the syntax elements related to reference picture list construction for the depth slice are predicted from the syntax elements related to reference picture list construction for the texture slice, decoding the depth slice based at least in part on the values of the syntax elements related to reference picture list construction for the texture slice. REJECTION Claims 1-5, 7-9, 19-23, 25, 28-32, 34-36, 46-50, and 52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Amon (US 2010/0254458 A1; Oct. 7, 2010) and Chen (WO 2010/043773 A1; Apr. 22, 2010). Final Act. 5-18. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have considered all evidence presented and all arguments Appellant made. The Examiner rejects claims 1-5, 7-9, 19-23, 25, 28-32, 34-36, 46-50, and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Amon and Chen. Final Act. 5-18. Specifically, with respect to independent claims 1, 19, 28, and 46, the Examiner finds Amon teaches nearly every recited limitation of each of the claims. Final Act. 7-12, 14-18. The Examiner finds Amon teaches or suggests indicating “whether syntax elements related to reference picture list construction for [a] slice are predicted from the syntax elements related to reference picture list construction for” a related slice, as recited in claim 1.. Final Act. 9-11 (citing Amon ¶¶ 21, 27, 30, 31). The Examiner finds Amon fails to teach or suggest “that the content of the second slice can represent ‘depth,’” but the Examiner finds Chen teaches Appeal 2020-005333 Application 13/553,617 4 this concept and concludes the claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the cited teachings. Final Act. 11-12 (citing Chen ¶¶ 8, 9, 16, 21, 43, 44); see also Ans. 5 (citing Amon ¶ 13; Chen ¶ 16) (finding that Amon’s disclosure of multiple images having similar format and coding methods and Chen’s disclosure that depth data may be coded similarly to texture data, taken together, teach or suggest that texture and depth data can be jointly coded), 12 (“Chen is cited to indicate that texture and depth data are exactly the types of data that”). Of particular relevance to this Appeal, the third receiving step of claim 1 recites receiving “a reference picture prediction syntax element that indicates whether syntax elements . . . for the depth slice are predicted from the syntax elements related to . . . the texture slice” (the “indicator syntax element”). The last step of each of claims 1 and 28 recites decoding (or encoding) the depth slice “based at least in part on the values of the syntax elements related to reference picture list construction for the texture slice” where or when the indicator syntax element indicates certain information for the depth slice is predicted from the analogous information for the texture slice. Regarding the indicator syntax element of the above-quoted limitation, the Examiner finds Amon discloses that certain signaling parameters (i.e., num_ref_frames, weighted_pred_flag, and weighted_bipred_idc) “[‘]can be identical in the first picture parameter sets’ thus indicating if the prediction syntax elements are related as identical or not.” Final Act. 8-9 (citing Amon ¶¶ 21-31, 74, 85). The Examiner finds Amon does not explicitly describe the indicator syntax element, but that “it is well understood in the art that when the slices are coded (as above), there Appeal 2020-005333 Application 13/553,617 5 are syntax elements that indicate how the slices are coded, and these syntax elements would be located in the slice header.” Ans. 9-10 (citing Amon ¶¶ 88, 62); see also Ans. 11-12 (finding Amon and the Specification demonstrate that storing the type of syntax elements recited in a slice header was conventional), 13 (finding that “PTAB would recognize . . . syntax elements in the prior art would not have identical names or uses, however evidence (as summarized above) indicates that this type of indication was conventional under H.264 standard for this exact purpose, and thus obvious as claimed” (emphasis added)). Among other arguments, Appellant asserts that Amon’s cited signaling parameters do not teach or suggest receiving the indicator syntax element. Appeal Br. 9-11. Appellant argues Amon merges two coded input video streams into a single coded output video stream. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant contends Amon teaches the single coded output stream includes a slice header for each of the two coded input streams, each slice header including a full set of syntax elements and values so that each of the slices can be coded separately from each other. Appeal Br. 10-11 (citing Amon ¶ 61, Fig. 2). Appellant argues Amon cannot teach receiving the indicator syntax element because Amon requires a full set of values in each header such that each slice header for the respective input streams includes a full set of syntax elements in the coded output stream and, therefore Amon would have no use for an indicator syntax element or a reason to signal such an indicator element. Appeal Br. 11-12. Appellant argues that, although the Examiner breaks the step of receiving the indicator syntax element up into sub-features, the Examiner never makes a finding that Amon teaches a syntax element “that controls whether or not other syntax elements for a Appeal 2020-005333 Application 13/553,617 6 slice are predicted from syntax elements from another slice,” and neither Amon nor Chen teaches such an element. Reply Br. 5-6. We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Amon teaches including syntax elements in slice headers used to encode or decode the slices or streams of data and that Amon discloses copying syntax elements for one slice header from syntax elements of another slice header. Final Act. 9-10; Ans. 6 (citing Amon ¶ 58); Amon ¶ 27 (describing inserting into a second slice header a value for a syntax parameter from a first slice header). We also agree with the Examiner’s findings that Chen teaches relationships between depth and texture slices and, more specifically, using information from one slice to code the other slice. See Final Act. 12; see also Ans. 5, 8- 10, 12; Chen 5:6-14 (“a motion vector for a texture video is predicted from a respective motion vector of a depth map video or vice versa . . . [and] inter- layer motion prediction can be used to predict motion in texture video from motion in depth map video” or vice versa). The Examiner finds Amon does not anticipate the details of the recited indicator syntax element, but that Amon and Chen render the claim obvious because, in combination, Amon and Chen teach slice headers that include syntax elements of this type that are used to code texture and depth slices. Final Act. 9-10; Ans. 11-12. The Examiner states that the rejection breaks the step of receiving the indicator syntax element into two parts and provides “additional reasons to indicate obviousness.” Ans. 13. Finally, the Examiner concludes that “anticipation of the exact name of the claimed data element is an unreasonable requirement [because] syntax elements in the prior art would not have identical names or uses,” but the evidence “indicates that this type of indication was conventional under H.264 standard Appeal 2020-005333 Application 13/553,617 7 for this exact purpose, and thus obvious as claimed.” Ans. 13 (emphases added). As noted above, we agree with all of the Examiner’s findings regarding what Amon and Chen disclose, teach, and suggest. Moreover, we also agree with the Examiner’s statement that, based on Appellant’s arguments raised before us, the difference between the prior art and the subject matter recited in claim 1 appears to be merely the name and use of the indicator syntax element. However, we disagree that the evidence and reasoning on the record before us sufficiently demonstrates how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have included the recited indicator syntax element having its particular recited use-i.e., to indicate whether syntax elements for a depths slice are predicted from syntax elements for a texture slice. As the Examiner acknowledges, see Ans. 11-12, Amon’s cited syntax elements do not teach an element that indicates whether to predict syntax elements for one slice using syntax elements from another slice, regardless of the type of slices. Although Chen clearly discloses predicting depth slices from textures slices, its exact mechanism for doing so is not clear in the cited disclosures. We disagree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the record shows that syntax elements “for th[e] exact purpose,” Ans. 13, recited in claim 1 were conventional. To be clear, we agree Amon demonstrates that slice headers having syntax elements used to code slices were known and Chen demonstrates that predicting depth slices from texture slices was known, but we disagree that the record demonstrates that it would have been obvious to predict depth slices from texture slices by using a syntax element that indicates whether syntax elements for a depth slice are predicted from syntax Appeal 2020-005333 Application 13/553,617 8 elements for a texture slice. To the extent that the particularly recited use of a syntax element might have been the only way to implement, or at least would have been an obvious implantation of Chen’s technique to a person of ordinary skill in the art, we find insufficient support in the record for such a conclusion. Appellant argues claims 2-5 and 7-9, which depend from claim 1, independent claim 19 and claims 20-23 and 25 that depend therefrom, independent claim 28 and claims 29-32 and 34-36 that depend therefrom, and independent claim 46 and claims 47-50 and 52 that depend therefrom are not obvious for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 1. Appeal Br. 14-18. Constrained by this record, and for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 7-9, 19-23, 25, 28-32, 34-36, 46-50, and 52. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 7-9, 19-23, 25, 28-32, 34-36, 46-50, and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-5, 7-9, 19-23, 25, 28-32, 34-36, 46-50, 52 103(a) Amon, Chen 1-5, 7-9, 19-23, 25, 28-32, 34-36, 46-50, 52 REVERSED