Ex Parte Wu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2018

14565555 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/565,555 12/10/2014
47795 7590 09/21/2018
TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
1616 S. VOSS RD., SUITE 750
HOUSTON, TX 77057-2620
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Haihua Wu
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
ITL.3283US (P72380) 1230
EXAMINER
SHAHNAMI, AMIR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2489
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2018 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):
tphpto@tphm.com
Inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HAIHUA WU and JULIA A. GOULD
Appeal2018-000720 1
Application 14/565,5552
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
1 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed June
22, 2017), Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Oct. 27, 2017), and Specification
("Spec.," filed Dec. 10, 2014), as well as the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.,"
mailed Sept. 27, 2017), the Advisory Action ("Adv. Act.," mailed Mar. 17,
2017), and the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Dec. 27, 2016).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Intel Corp. App. Br.
3.
Appeal2018-000720
Application 14/565,555
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to splitting "[a]n individual
large kernel ... into multiple, less dependent, smaller kernels, thereby
significantly increasing the number of software threads that can potentially
run in parallel." Spec. ,r 5. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the
appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A method comprising:
performing deblocking for video compression by
splitting a larger kernel for an entire block having a first
number of dependencies into smaller portions with a second
number of dependencies, wherein the second number is less
than said first number; and
reducing the number of dependencies for a given thread
by eliminating dependencies.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17,
18, 20, 21, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as being anticipated by Hsu
et al. (US 2014/0198844 Al; published July 17, 2014) (hereinafter "Hsu").
Final Act. 3-10.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 2, 5, 9, 12, 16, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hsu and Gou
(US 2008/0298473 Al; published Dec. 4, 2008) (hereinafter "Gou"). Final
Act. 10-15.
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combination of Hsu, Gou, and U gur et al.
(US 2008/0089412 Al; published Apr. 17, 2008) (hereinafter "U gur").
Final Act. 15-16.
2
Appeal2018-000720
Application 14/565,555
ISSUE
The dispositive issue for this appeal is whether Hsu discloses
"splitting a larger kernel for an entire block ... into smaller portions,"
thereby reducing the number of dependencies.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner errs. We find Appellants' arguments
discussed herein3 persuasive.
Appellants argue that Hsu fails to disclose "splitting a larger kernel
for an entire block having a first number of dependencies into smaller
portions with a second number of dependencies, wherein the second number
is less than said first number," as recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 1. More specifically, Appellants argue that Hsu
instead discloses breaking a picture into tiles, and then "removing data
dependencies in the vertical or horizontal directions after the tiles have
already been created ... using a loop filtering technique." Reply Br. 1
( emphasis added) ( citing Hsu ,r,r 10, 31 ). "In other words the creation of the
tiles [in Hsu] did not in any way reduce the data dependencies," according to
Appellants. Id.
The Examiner finds that Hsu discloses the disputed limitation. See
Ans. 3--4; Final Act. 3--4. More specifically, the Examiner finds that Hsu
discloses splitting "an initial picture, the largest coding unit (LCU), ... into
3 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced
by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
3
Appeal2018-000720
Application 14/565,555
nine boxes (boxes A-I)," referred to as tiles. Ans. 3 (citing Hsu ,r 10, Fig. 7).
The Examiner also quotes Hsu's paragraph 31, which includes:
For the tile partition shown in Fig. 7, if the vertical data
dependency is removed, the row of tiles A, B and C are
independent of the row of tiles D, E and F. Similarly, the row of
tiles D, E and F are independent of the row of tiles G, Hand I.
In this case, tiles A, D and G can be processed in parallel. On
the other hand, if the horizontal data dependency is removed,
the tiles A, B and C can be processed in parallel. The above
reducing data dependency technique can also be applied to data
dependency across tile boundaries related to filter information
determination.
Ans. 4 (italics omitted) ( quoting Hsu ,r 31 ). The Examiner concludes,
therefore, that Hsu "clearly illustrates a larger kernel splitting into smaller
portion[ s ], where the removal of data dependency, either vertical or
horizontal, reduces the number of dependencies for a given thread." Id.
Based on the evidence of record, we are constrained to agree with
Appellants that the Examiner errs in finding that the cited portions of Hsu
disclose the disputed limitation. We agree with Appellants that these
portions of Hsu do not disclose reducing dependencies by splitting the kernel
into smaller portions. See Hsu ,r,r 10, 31, Fig. 7. Rather, Hsu discloses using
a "loop filtering technique" to remove data dependency across tile
boundaries. Id. For example, Hsu discloses using a loop filtering technique
to remove vertical data dependency so that the row of tiles A, B, and C is
independent of the row of tiles D, E, and F. Id. Simply put, the portion of
Hsu the Examiner relies upon does not support the Examiner's proposed
rejection. Id.
4
Appeal2018-000720
Application 14/565,555
CONCLUSION
Based on our reasoning above, we do not sustain the Examiner's
§ 102 rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, as well as claims 3, 4, 6,
7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 24, as they depend from one of these
independent claims. As to the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of (i) claims 2, 5,
9, 12, 16, and 19, and (ii) claims 22 and 23, the Examiner relies on the above
discussed findings from Hsu regarding the disputed limitation, but does not
identify any teachings in the other applied prior art to cure the deficiency of
Hsu. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejections of
claims 2, 5, 9, 12, 16, 19, 22, and 23.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-24.
REVERSED
5