Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 19, 2017

13777785 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2017)

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.
13/777,785 02/26/2013 Ying CHEN 1212-162US01/121678 2220
15150 7590 06/21/2017
Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A.
1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
EXAMINER
LEE, JIMMY S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2017 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):
pairdocketing @ ssiplaw.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YING CHEN, YE-KUI WANG, and
MARTA KARCZEWICZ
Appeal 2017-004618
Application 13/777,7851
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is QUALCOMM
Incorporated. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-004618
Application 13/777,785
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter with disputed limitations emphasized:
A method of extracting a sub-bitstream from a three-
dimensional video (3DV) bitstream that includes coded texture
view components and coded depth view components, the method
comprising:
determining a texture target view list that indicates views
in the 3DV bitstream, the views indicated by the texture target
view list having texture view components required for decoding
pictures in a plurality of target views, the plurality of target views
comprising a sub set of views in the 3DV bitstream, wherein the
target views are targets for output by a video decoder;
determining a separate depth target view list that indicates
views in the 3DV bitstream, the views indicated by the depth
target view list having depth view components required for
decoding pictures in the plurality of target views, the texture
target view list indicating a different subset of the views in the
3DV bitstream from the views indicated by the depth target view
list; and
determining the sub-bitstream based at least in part on the
texture target view list and the depth target view list.
REJECTIONS2
Claims 1—9, 11—19, and 21—28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rapporteur (Gary J. Sullivan et al.,
Editors ’ Draft Revision to ITU-TRec. H.2641ISO/IEC14496-10 Advanced
Video Coding — in Preparation for ITU-T SG 16 AAP Consent (in
integrated form) (2009)), Suzuki (Int’l Org. For Standardization, WD on
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
rejection of claims 21—24 (Adv. Act. 2).
2
Appeal 2017-004618
Application 13/777,785
MVC Extensions for Inclusion of Depth Maps (Teruhiko Suzuki et al. eds.,
2011)), and Graziosi (US 2013/0202194 Al; published Aug. 8, 2013). Final
Act. 4—19.
Claims 10, 20, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rapporteur, Suzuki, Graziosi, and Neuman (US
2011/0032333 Al; published Feb. 10,2011). Final Act. 19-20.
ISSUES
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Rapporteur, Suzuki, and Graziosi teaches “determining a texture target view
list. . . determining a separate depth target view list... the texture target
view list indicating a different subset of the views in the 3DV bitstream from
the views indicated by the depth target view list,” as recited in claim 1 and
similarly recited in claims 11,21, and 25?
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Rapporteur, Suzuki, and Graziosi teaches “the depth target view list includes
view identifiers that identify the views in the 3DV bitstream that have depth
view components that are required for decoding pictures in the plurality of
target views,” as recited in claim 2 and similarly recited in claim 12?
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Rapporteur, Suzuki, and Graziosi teaches
determining an anchor texture target view list that indicates
views in the 3DV bitstream that have texture view components
that are required for decoding of anchor pictures in the plurality
of target views . . . determining an anchor depth target view list
that indicates views in the 3DV bitstream that have depth view
components that are required for decoding of the anchor pictures
in the plurality of target views,
3
Appeal 2017-004618
Application 13/777,785
as recited in claim 5?
Issue 4: Did the Examiner improperly combine Rapporteur, Suzuki,
Graziosi, and Neuman in rejecting claims 10 and 20?
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants’ contentions and adopt as our own:
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—20); (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2); and (3) the reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the Answer in response to the Appeal Brief (Ans. 19—
28). With respect to the claims argued by Appellants, we highlight and
address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Issue 1
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Rapporteur, Suzuki, and Graziosi teaches “determining a texture target view
list. . . determining a separate depth target view list... the texture target
view list indicating a different subset of the views in the 3DV bitstream from
the views indicated by the depth target view list,” as recited in claim 1 and
similarly recited in claims 11,21, and 25. App. Br. 10-19; Reply Br. 5—12.
Specifically, Appellants argue that “Rapporteur do[es] not identify ‘view
components,’” i.e., texture and depth components, “but rather identif[ies]
‘views,’” (Reply Br. 8; see App. Br. 15—16), that the combination of
Rapporteur and Suzuki “still identif[ies] views” rather than view component
lists (Reply Br. 8—9; see App. Br. 12—13), and that it would not have been
obvious to combine Rapporteur with Graziosi “to determine a texture target
4
Appeal 2017-004618
Application 13/777,785
view list that indicates views and a separate depth target view list that
indicates views” (Reply Br. 9). Further, Appellants argue “it is unclear
how . . . Graziosi could motivate the person of ordinary skill in the art” to
modify Rapporteur to determine a separate depth target view list because
Graziosi does not “explicitly describe [] a list of views in a 3DV bitstream”
(App. Br. 13) and because Graziosi “discloses handling depth images and
texture images'1'’ (Reply Br. 9). Further, Appellants argue “[t]he rationale
provided by the final Office Action sheds no light on why the person of
ordinary skill in the art would modify the existing ‘sub-bitstream extraction
process’ of Rapporteur to include a step of ‘determining a separate depth
target view list. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 11.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Rapporteur
teaches “multiview video coding consists of using one or more view
components” that “are organized in view component lists.” Ans. 20; Final
Act. 4 (citing Rapporteur 609, 632). The Examiner further finds, and we
agree, Suzuki teaches “view components consist of texture view components
and depth view components.” Ans. 20; Final Act. 5 (citing Suzuki 6). The
Examiner combines Rapporteur with Suzuki such that “view components . . .
contained in a list. . . consist of texture view components and depth view
components.” Ans. 20.
Additionally, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Graziosi teaches
“separate inputs of depth images 202 and texture images 201 which are
encoded separately (texture encoder 210 and depth encoder 212), and
decoded separately (texture decoder 215 and depth decoder 214) into
decoded depth image 204 and decoded texture image 203.” Ans. 23 (citing
Graziosi 46, 48, Fig. 2); Final Act. 6 (citing Graziosi 26, 41, 43, 44,
5
Appeal 2017-004618
Application 13/777,785
47, Fig. 5). Applying Graziosi’s separate texture and depth decoding
teachings, the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to separate
the list of texture and depth view components, as taught by the combination
of Rapporteur and Suzuki, into a texture view component list and a separate
depth view component list. Final Act. 6; Ans. 23—24.
Appellants’ arguments that Rapporteur, Suzuki, and Graziosi, alone or
in combination, do not teach lists of view components, i.e., a “texture target
view” and a “depth target view” (Reply Br. 8—9; App. Br. 12—13, 15—16),
are not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that Rapporteur teaches, or
at least suggests, “view components are organized in view component lists.”
Ans. 20. In particular, Rapporteur teaches a “viewIdTargetList. . .
identifying the views in the bitstream,” i.e., a list of views. Rapporteur 632.
Rapporteur further teaches a view is a “sequence of view components,'1'’ i.e., a
view includes view components. Rapporteur 609. Because Rapporteur’s
view is a sequence of view components, we determine Rapporteur’s list of
views teaches a list of view components. Furthermore, Appellants do not
provide persuasive evidence or argument that the Examiner’s combination of
Rapporteur and Suzuki — modifying Rapporteur’s list of view components
such that the list of view components is a list of texture components and
depth components — would not have been obvious to the skilled artisan.
Further, Appellants’ argument that Graziosi would not “motivate the
person of ordinary skill in the art” to modify Rapporteur to determine “a
separate depth target view list” because Graziosi “do[es] not mention a list
of any type” (App. Br. 13) and because Graziosi teaches “handling depth
images and texture images separately” (Reply Br. 9; see App. Br. 15) does
not persuasively address the Examiner’s combination of Rapporteur, Suzuki,
6
Appeal 2017-004618
Application 13/777,785
and Graziosi. The Examiner relies on the combination of Rapporteur and
Suzuki to teach texture and depth view component lists (Ans. 20; Final Act.
5); to that combination, the Examiner applies Graziosi’s teaching that texture
and depth information can be processed separately (Final Act. 6 (citing
Graziosi Tflf 26, 41, 43, 44, 46, 52, Fig. 5); Ans. 23—24 (citing Graziosi Fig.
2)). Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
determination that applying Graziosi’s teaching to separate the texture and
depth view components lists taught by the combination of Rapporteur and
Suzuki would have been obvious to the skilled artisan.
Further, Appellants’ argument that “the Examiner has not set forth a
valid reason for” the combination of Rapporteur, Suzuki, and Graziosi
(Reply Br. 11) is unpersuasive. The Examiner’s reasoning for the
modification is supported by rational underpinning, i.e., “up-scaling[ing] to
achieve high resolution images” by applying Graziosi’s technique of
separating “depth and textures [that are] determined using lower resolution
and smaller images.” Final Act. 6; see Ans. 25. Furthermore, Appellants’
arguments that “there is no reason in any of the cited references” for the
Examiner’s combination (Reply Br. 11) is not persuasive because the
teaching, suggestion, or motivation standard is not required in determining
obviousness under KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
In any case, we note the Examiner’s rationale is supported by Graziosi (Ans.
25 (citing Graziosi 146); see Gaziosi 127, claim 1).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Rapporteur, Suzuki, and Graziosi teaches “determining a
texture target view list. . . determining a separate depth target view list. . .
the texture target view list indicating a different subset of the views in the
7
Appeal 2017-004618
Application 13/777,785
3DV bitstream from the views indicated by the depth target view list,” as
recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 11,21, and 25.
Issue 2
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Rapporteur, Suzuki, and Graziosi teaches “the depth target view list includes
view identifiers that identify the views in the 3DV bitstream that have depth
view components that are required for decoding pictures in the plurality of
target views,” as recited in claim 2 and similarly recited in claim 12. App.
Br. 19-20. Specifically, Appellants argue “Suzuki does not disclose or
suggest a list of any kind, much less one in which ‘the views indicated by
the [list] [have] depth view components required for decoding pictures in the
plurality of target views,’” as recited in the claims. Id. at 20 (brackets in
original).
Appellants’ argument that Suzuki does not teach a list of view
components (id.) is not persuasive because the Examiner relies on
Rapporteur, rather than Suzuki, to teach view component lists (Ans. 20, 28).
Furthermore, Appellants’ argument that Suzuki alone does not teach a list of
depth views (App. Br. 20) does not address the Examiner’s finding that the
combination of Rapporteur and Suzuki, teaches depth view lists, as
discussed supra (Ans. 20; Final Act. 5). Additionally, Appellants’ argument
that “nothing in the cited portions of Rapporteur in view of Suzuki discloses
or suggests] that ‘the texture target view list includes one or more view
identifiers that are different than the view identifiers in the depth target view
list’” (Reply Br. 13) was brought up for the first time in Appellants’ Reply
Brief; this argument is untimely and is therefore waived. See 37 C.F.R.
8
Appeal 2017-004618
Application 13/777,785
41.41(b)(2). We also note Appellants’ untimely argument merely asserts the
limitation is not taught without further elaboration, and, therefore, is
unpersuasive in any event.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Rapporteur, Suzuki, and Graziosi teaches “the depth target
view list includes view identifiers that identify the views in the 3DV
bitstream that have depth view components that are required for decoding
pictures in the plurality of target views,” as recited in claim 2 and similarly
recited in claim 12.
Issue 3
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Rapporteur, Suzuki, and Graziosi teaches
determining an anchor texture target view list that indicates
views in the 3DV bitstream that have texture view components
that are required for decoding of anchor pictures in the plurality
of target views . . . [and] determining an anchor depth target view
list that indicates views in the 3DV bitstream that have depth
view components that are required for decoding of the anchor
pictures in the plurality of target views,
as recited in claim 5. App. Br. 20-21; Reply Br. 13—14. Specifically,
Appellants argue “Rapporteur does not disclose or suggest the determination
of a ‘separate depth target view list,’ as set forth in Appellant’s independent
claim 1. It follows that sections H.8.5.2 and H.8.5.3 of [Rapporteur]3 do not
3 We understand Appellants’ references to Hannuksela (App. Br. 21; Reply
Br. 13) to be typographical errors because Appellants’ other citations and
explanations correctly cite Rapporteur (App. Br. 9, 21; Reply Br. 5, 14) and
the Examiner’s rejection does not rely on Hannuksela.
9
Appeal 2017-004618
Application 13/777,785
disclose or suggest” the disputed limitations of claim 5 reproduced above.
App. Br. 21; Reply Br. 13—14.
As discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner that the combination
of Rapporteur, Suzuki, and Graziosi teaches a separate depth target view list
(Final Act. 6; Ans. 23—24). Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments, based on
Rapporteur alone failing to teach a separate depth target view list (App. Br.
21), do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Rapporteur, Suzuki, and Graziosi teaches
determining an anchor texture target view list that indicates
views in the 3DV bitstream that have texture view components
that are required for decoding of anchor pictures in the plurality
of target views . . . [and] determining an anchor depth target view
list that indicates views in the 3DV bitstream that have depth
view components that are required for decoding of the anchor
pictures in the plurality of target views,
as recited in claim 5.
Issue 4
Appellants contend the Examiner improperly combined Rapporteur,
Suzuki, Graziosi, and Neuman in rejecting claims 10 and 20. App. Br. 22;
Reply Br. 14. Specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner “provide[s] no
apparent reason for modification to include [the] features” recited in these
claims. App. Br. 22; Reply Br. 14.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner articulates a rationale with
some reasonable underpinning, for the combination of Rapporteur, Suzuki,
Graziosi, and Neuman (Final Act. 20). Appellants’ argument that the
Examiner did not provide a reason for the combination (App. Br. 22; Reply
Br. 14) does not address the Examiner’s stated rationale and, accordingly,
10
Appeal 2017-004618
Application 13/777,785
does not persuade us the Examiner improperly combined Rapporteur,
Suzuki, Graziosi, and Neuman in rejecting claims 10 and 20.
Remaining Claims 3, 4, 6—9, 13—19, 22—24, and 26—29
Appellants do not argue separate patentability for dependent claims 3,
4, 6—9, 13—19, 22—24, and 26—29, which depend directly or indirectly from
claims 1, 11,21, and 25. See App. Br. 16—19, 21. Accordingly, for the
reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting these claims, and we sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 3, 4, 6—9, 13—19, 22—24, and 26—29.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—9, 11—19, and 21—28 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rapporteur, Suzuki, and Graziosi
is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 20, and 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rapporteur, Suzuki, Graziosi, and
Neuman is affirmed.
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
11