Ex parte Wang

• Decision Date: 23 September 2019
• Docket Number: Appeal 2018-000303,120,Application 14/029
• Parties: Ex parte YE-KUI WANG Technology Center 2400
• Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Ex parte YE-KUI WANG Technology Center 2400

Appeal 2018-000303

Application 14/029, 120

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

September 23, 2019

FILING DATE: 09/17/2013

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG, AND JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DECISION ON APPEAL

DIXON, ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant^[1] appeals from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-8, 10-16, 18-25, 27-33, and 35-38, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Final Act. 1. Claims 9, 17, 26, and 34 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER

The claims are directed to an indication of frame-packed stereoscopic 3D video data for video coding. Claims 1 and 10, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:

1. A method for decoding video data, the method comprising

receiving, with video decoder circuitry, video data

receiving, with the video decoder circuitry, an indication that indicates whether any pictures in the received video data contain frame-packed stereoscopic 3D video data, wherein the frame-packed stereoscopic 3D video data is 3D video data that includes a half resolution version of a right view frame and a half resolution version of a left view frame, wherein the indication is received in at least one of a profile syntax, a tier syntax, or a level syntax, and wherein the profile syntax, the tier syntax, or the level syntax specify limits on the capabilities needed to decode the video data

decoding, with the video decoder circuitry, the indication prior to decoding the received video data; and

decoding, with the video decoder circuitry, the received video data in accordance with the received indication and in accordance with a capability of the video decoder circuitry to decode the frame-packed stereoscopic 3D video data including:

decoding, with the video decoder circuitry, the received video data in the case that the indication specifies that there are one or more pictures in the received video data that contain frame-packed stereoscopic 3D video data and the video decoder circuitry is capable of decoding frame-packed stereoscopic 3D video data.

10. A method for encoding video data, the method comprising:

encoding, with video encoder circuitry, video data;

generating, with the video encoder circuitry, an indication that indicates whether any pictures in the encoded video data contain frame-packed stereoscopic 3D video data, wherein the frame-packed stereoscopic 3D video data is 3D video data that includes a half resolution version of a right view frame and a half resolution version of a left view frame, wherein the indication is generated in at least one of a profile syntax, a tier syntax, or a level syntax, and wherein the profile syntax, the tier syntax, or the level syntax specify limits on the capabilities needed to decode the video data; and

signaling the indication in an encoded video bitstream.

REFERENCES

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:

Yunetal.	US 2003/0095177 A1	May 22, 2003
Kikuchi et al.	US 7, 010, 032 B1	Mar. 7, 2006

REJECTIONS

Claims 18-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.^[2]

Claims 1-8, 10-16, 18-25, 27-33, and 35-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed toward non-statutory subject matter.

Claims 1-8, 10-16, 18-25, 27-33, 35, and 36 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or in the alternative under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yun.

Claims 37 and 38 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yun in view of Kikuchi.

OPINION

35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph

With respect to independent claims 35 and 36, the Examiner maintains that independent claims 35 and 36 are drafted using functional limitations and require interpretation of these functional limitations in view of the corresponding structure, acts, or materials as disclosed in the specification for a proper interpretation and to particularly point out and distinctly claim to the claimed invention. The Examiner maintains that, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, acts, or material for the claimed function and therefore do not particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. (Final Act. 8-10; see also Ans. 14 - 15).

Appellant concedes that the Examiner is correct with the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.^[3] (App. Br. 15). Appellant identified paragraph 45 of the Specification as providing written description support for the corresponding "means" limitations in independent claims 35 and 36. Appellant contents that paragraph 45 of Appellant's Specification describes example circuits which may be used for video decoder 30 and therefore, "at least one corresponding structure for Appellant's claimed means is a special purpose computer." (App. Br. 16). Appellant further argues that "Appellant's specification clearly recites well understood structures that may be configured to perform the features [of] claim 35 (e.g., video decoder 30)."^[4] (App. Br. 16).

Accordingly, we look to Appellant's Specification to determine whether there is sufficient structure to support the recited functions. We agree with the Examiner that a generic processor and disclosed does not provide sufficient structure to perform each of the recited functions.

Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's finding of functional limitations, and Appellant also contends that the rejection of claims 35 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph has been withdrawn. (Reply Br. 4).

The Examiner provides a further detailed response regarding paragraph 45 of the Specification. (Ans. 14-15).

We have reviewed paragraph 45 of the Specification identified by Appellant and disagree with the Appellant that the originally filed Specification discloses the specific algorithm(s) for accomplishing the various functional "means" recited in the language of independent claims 35 and 36.

In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends that its argument that "video decoder" and "video decoder circuitry" are within a broad class of structures that are well-understood in the art of video coding is not an admission that the structures and processes recited in Appellant's claims are known. Appellant also contends that Appellant's Specification and claims are replete with a description of an algorithm that detail how video decoding circuitry may be configured to decode video data, including how video decoding circuitry may decode video data in accordance with the techniques of this disclosure. Appellant also argues that the claims are directed to both processes as well as a special purpose computer configured to implement the disclosed algorithm. (Reply Br. 6-7).

But Appellant does not specifically identify where the video decoding/encoding is specifically disclosed in the Specification so as to make the processes special purpose computers. (See Reply Br. 6).

Appellant specifically identifies, in the Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter, that "video decoder 30 as shown in FIG. 4 and described, for example in paragraph [0045], [0098]-[0104], and [0109]-[0113] of Appellant's specification as filed."^[5] (App. Br. 6).

We find these identified paragraphs contain a detailed block diagram of numerous additional elements with none of their underlying corresponding disclosures so as to determine whether all of the corresponding blocks are necessary or whether any specific combination thereof would be included in the claimed invention. Consequently, Appellant's correlation does not identify the corresponding structure, acts, or materials to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.

We find Appellant provides a general argument and does not identify how the claimed invention particularly points out and distinctly claims the invention of claims 35 and 36. It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (attorney argument is not evidence).

Alternatively, if we find that the claimed encoding and decoding were conventional as Appellant contends, but the Specification does not further detail any algorithm for these well known functions, the use of the functional claim language under 35 U.S.C. §112, sixth paragraph would still be deficient because the skilled artisan would not know the scope of which of any of the well known corresponding algorithms to interpret the claim. Additionally, if Appellant contends that the scope of the claim would cover any and all known algorithms, then we find that the use of functional claiming who would be inappropriate due to the lack of inclusion in the written description of the corresponding disclosure as required by § 112, sixth paragraph.

However, the Federal Circuit has held that corresponding structure may be sufficiently disclosed in the form of an algorithm. WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1348 ("A general purpose computer, or microprocessor, programmed to carry out an algorithm creates 'a new machine, because a general purpose computer in effect becomes a special purpose computer once it is programmed to perform particular functions pursuant to instructions from program software.'" (quoting In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545...