QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 23, 2021

2020006282 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2021)

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.
14/590,897 01/06/2015 Ye-Kui Wang 1414-534US01/141576U1 3210
15150 7590 11/23/2021
Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A.
1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
EXAMINER
AN, SHAWN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2021 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 YE-KUI WANG
____________________

Appeal 2020-006282
Application 14/590,897
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 3–11, 13–21, 23–25 and 27–28. Claims 2, 12, 22,
and 26 have been canceled. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to video coding and compression. See
Spec. ¶ 2.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, QUALCOMM Incorporated, is
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-006282
Application 14/590,897

2

Representative Claim
Claims 1, 11, 21, and 25 are independent. Claim 1 is representative of
the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A method of coding video information, the method comprising:
determining whether or not a reference layer for an HEVC (High
Efficiency Video Coding) enhancement layer is included in a bitstream, and
determining whether the reference layer is coded according to a non-HEVC
codec, wherein the HEVC enhancement layer is coded according to an
HEVC codec;
determining whether one or more parameters for a decoded picture
buffer are signaled in the bitstream based upon determining whether the
reference layer for the HEVC enhancement layer is coded according to the
non-HEVC codec;
inferring values of the one or more parameters for the decoded picture
buffer based upon a determination that the reference layer for the HEVC
enhancement layer is coded according to the non-HEVC codec; and
coding the video information based at least in part on the inferred
values of the one or more parameters for the decoded picture buffer.

Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.).

REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following references as prior art:
Name Reference Date
Choi US 2016/0227232 A1 Aug. 4, 2016
He US 2016/0065976 A1 Mar. 3, 2016
Sato ‘840 (Sato 1) US 2015/0256840 A1 Sep. 10, 2015
Sato ‘505 (Sato 2) US 2015/0163505 A1 Jun. 11, 2015
Ramasubramonian US 2015/0103884 A1 Apr. 16, 2015
Hannuksela US 2010/0189182 A1 Jul. 29, 2010

REJECTIONS
Appeal 2020-006282
Application 14/590,897

3

The Examiner makes the following rejections:
Claims 1, 3–6, 9–11, 13–16, 19–21, 23–25, and 27–28 are rejected
under (AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Choi,
Hannuksela, Sato1, Sato 2, and He.
Claims 7–8 and 17–18 are rejected under (AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable under Choi, Hannuksela, Sato 1, Sato 2, He and
Ramasubramonian.
Appellant’s Contentions2
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), because:
[1] Choi does not do so on the basis of “a determination that
the reference layer for the HEVC enhancement layer is coded
according to the non-HEVC codec,”
. . . .
[2] the Choi/Sato[1] combination does not infer values of
parameters for a decoded picture buffer “based upon a
determination that the reference layer for the HEVC
enhancement layer is coded according to the non-HEVC codec,”
…
[3] Hannuksela fails to teach or suggest that such parameters may
be inferred, much less “inferring values of the one or more
parameters for the decoded picture buffer based upon a
determination that the reference layer for the HEVC
enhancement layer is coded according to the non-HEVC codec,”
…
[4] Even if the Choi/Sato[1] combination were modified by the
techniques of Hannuksela, Sato2, and He to use non-HEVC
reference layers and HEVC enhancement layers, the resulting
combination still does not use the non-HEVC reference

2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed April 30,
2020(“Appeal Br.”); Final Office Action mailed December 4, 2019 (“Final
Act.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 20, 2020(“Ans.”; and Reply
Brief filed Sep. 8, 2020(“Reply Br.”)).
Appeal 2020-006282
Application 14/590,897

4

layers as a basis for making any determinations about decoded
picture buffer parameters, much less “determining whether the
reference layer for the HEVC enhancement layer is coded
according to the non-HEVC codec, and inferring values of the
one or more parameters for the decoded picture buffer based
upon a determination that the reference layer for the HEVC
enhancement layer is coded according to the non-HEVC codec,”

Appeal Br. 9–10 (bolding omitted) (bracketed material added).

Issue
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious because the combination fails to teach or suggest the argued
limitations?
Analysis3
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3–11, 13–
21, 23–25 and 27–28 in light of Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief
and the Reply Brief. See Appeal Br. 8–11; Reply Br. 5–7. Any other
arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to make, are waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018). Unless otherwise indicated, we
agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner’s findings of fact and
conclusions as set forth in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is
taken and in the Answer. Final Act. 3–8; Ans. 8–11. We provide the
following explanation for emphasis.

3 Independent claims 11, 21, and 25 is argued together with claim 1. Appeal
Br. 9–10. Claims 3–10, 13–20, 23, 24 and 27–28 are not argued separately
from their respective independent claims and will not be addressed
separately.
Appeal 2020-006282
Application 14/590,897

5

In the Final Office Action and the Answer, the Examiner finds that the
combined disclosures of Choi, Hannuksela, Sato 1, Sato 2, and He teach or
suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 3–5; Ans. 9–11. In
particular, the Examiner provided sufficient reasons for the rejection of
claim 1 by identifying the relevant portions of the cited references and by
explaining how the references disclose the limitations of claim 1. Id. The
Examiner also explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to make the proposed combinations. Id.
As an initial matter, we do not agree with Appellant’s above
contentions that Choi, Hannuksela, Sato 1, Sato 2, and He, taken alone or in
hypothetical combination, fail to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1:
“determining whether one or more parameters for a decoded picture buffer
are signaled in the bitstream based upon determining whether the reference
layer for the HEVC enhancement layer is coded according to the non-HEVC
codec;” and “inferring values of the one or more parameters for the decoded
picture buffer based upon a determination that the reference layer for the
HEVC enhancement layer is coded according to the non-HEVC codec;).”
Appeal Br. 9–10. For each limitation, Appellant argues each cited reference
individually, instead of in combination with the other references. Id.; see
also Reply Br. 5–7.
Appellant’s arguments are unavailing because, as the Examiner notes
(see Ans. 9), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. In
re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (explaining the relevant inquiry is
whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of
Appeal 2020-006282
Application 14/590,897

6

ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those
references).
Furthermore, Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal and Reply Briefs
are deficient because they do not address the Examiner’s findings with
particularity and specifically explain with technical reasoning why the
findings are incorrect or fail to teach the disputed limitations. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites
will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”);
see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that
the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art.”); cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir.
1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater
detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over
the prior art.”).
Based on this record, Appellant does not persuade us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 11, 21, and 25, and claims 3–
10, 13–20, 23, 24 and 27–28 not substantively argued (Appeal Br. 8–11;
Reply Br. 5–7).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3–11, 13–21, 23–25
and 27–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings and
suggestions of the cited references.

Appeal 2020-006282
Application 14/590,897

7

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–6, 9–11,
13–16, 19–
21, 23–25,
27–28
103(a) Choi, Hannuksela,
Sato 1, Sato 2, He
1, 3–6, 9–11,
13–16, 19–
21, 23–25,
27–28

7, 8, 17, 18 103(a) Choi, Hannuksela,
Sato 1, Sato 2, He,
Ramasubramanian
7, 8, 17, 18
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–11, 13–
21, 23–25,
27–28

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED