Ex parte Son

Decision Date02 April 2020
Docket Number283,Appeal 2019-001626,Application 14/398
PartiesEx parte JONATAN SAMUELS SON and RICKARD SJÖBERG Technology Center 2400
CourtPatent Trial and Appeal Board

Ex parte JONATAN SAMUELS SON and RICKARD SJÖBERG Technology Center 2400

Appeal 2019-001626

Application 14/398, 283

United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board

April 2, 2020


FILING DATE: 10/31/2014

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, ADAM J. PYONIN, and IFTIKHAR AHMED, Administrative Patent Judges.

DECISION ON APPEAL

AHMED, Administrative Patent Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 15, 26, and 28-33, which are all of the claims pending in the application.[1] Claims 1-14, 16-25, and 27 have been cancelled. Appeal Br. 14, 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER

The claims relate to encoding and decoding video sequences. Spec. 1. C la im 15 is illustrative and reproduced below:

15. A method of decoding a coded video sequence comprising Network Abstraction Layer (NAL) units, the method comprising
decoding a current picture comprised in the coded video sequence
identifying the current picture as a leading picture of exactly one Clean Random Access (CRA) picture included in the coded video sequence; and detecting an error as a result of determining that
i) a NAL unit type information of the current picture is not set to a specific NAL unit type that is reserved for leading pictures of exactly one CRA picture
ii) the current picture does not directly follow in decoding order the exactly one CRA picture, and
iii) the current picture does not directly follow in decoding order a picture which is identified as a leading picture of the exactly one CRA picture.

REJECTIONS

Claims 15, 26, 28-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as claiming patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2.

Claims 15, 26, 28-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Sullivan (US 2013/027430 A1; Oct. 17, 2013). Final Act. 5.

ISSUES

1. Did the Examiner err in concluding that claims 15 and 26 are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter without significantly more?

2. Did the Examiner err in concluding that claims 29 and 32 are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter without significantly more?

3. Did the Examiner err in finding that Sullivan discloses "detecting an error," as recited in claims 15 and 26?

4. Did the Examiner err in finding that Sullivan discloses "in response to detecting the error, reporting the error as any one of: a biterror, loss of data, a non-compliant bitstream, and a non-compliant decoder," as recited in claims 28 and 31?

SECTION 101 REJECTION OF CLAIMS 15 AND 26

Principles of Law

Patent statute 35 U.S.C. § 101 defines patentable subject matter, but the Supreme Court has "long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception" that "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012) (quotation omitted). "Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a question of law, based on underlying facts." SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2018). To determine patentable subject matter, the Supreme Court has set forth a two part test.

"First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts" of "laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). A court must be cognizant that "all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas" (Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71), and "describing the claims at . . . a high level l0 of abstraction and untethered from the language of the claims all but ensures that the exceptions to § 101 swallow the rule." Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, "we evaluate the focus of the claimed advance over the prior art to determine if the character of the claim as a whole, considered in light of the specification, is directed to excluded subject matter." Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted). "The inquiry often is whether the claims are directed to 'a specific means or method' for improving technology or whether they are simply directed to an abstract end-result." RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

If the claims are directed to an abstract idea or other ineligible concept, then we continue to the second step and "consider the elements of each claim both individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine whether the additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). The Supreme Court has "described step two of this analysis as a search for an 'inventive concept'-i .e., an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself." Id. at 217-18 (quotation omitted). However, "[t]he abstract idea itself cannot supply the inventive concept, no matter how groundbreaking the advance." Trading Techs., 921 F.3d at 1093 (quotation omitted).

In 2019, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("2019 Guidance"); U S P T O, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ peg_oct_2019_update.pdf ("October 2019 Guidance Update"). Under the 2019 Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites

(1) a judicial exception, such as a law of nature or any of the following groupings of abstract ideas:
(a) mathematical concepts, such as mathematical formulas;
(b) certain methods of organizing human activity, such as a fundamental economic practice; or
(c) mental processes, such as an observation or evaluation performed in the human mind; and
(2) any additional limitations such that the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).

2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-55.

Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:

(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.

2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.

Determinations and Contentions

The Examiner concludes that claims 15, 26, 28-33 are...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT