State Intellectual Property Office of P.R.C

State Intellectual Property Office of
P.R.C.
Issuing date:
200041
Block C, 32/F, Zhongyi Building, No. 580, Nanjing West Road,
Shanghai
Shanghai Guanghua Patent Office (General Partnership)
Guo Jingjing, (51096606-852) December 16, 2021
Application number or patent Issuing serial number: 2021121300941510

number: 201110166809.9
Case number: 4W112514
Title of invention creation: IMPROVED INTERPOLATION OF VIDEO COMPRESSION
FRAME
Patentee: Dolby Laboratories Inc.
Petitioner of invalidation: United Patent Co., Ltd.
Examination Decisions on Request for Invalidation

(No. 52983)
In accordance with the provisions of Article 46, Paragraph 1 of the Patent Law, the State
Intellectual Property Office has examined the request for invalidation proposed by the petitioner of
invalidation in respect of the above patent right and has decided as follows:
declaring a patent right invalid in whole
□declaring a patent right invalid in part
□ maintaining the validity of a patent right
In accordance with Article 46, Paragraph 2 of the Patent Law, any party not satisfied with this
decision may file a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court within three months from
the date of receipt of this notice, and the other party participates in the lawsuit as a third party.
Attachment: 10 pages of the text of the decision (the text starts on page 2).
Leader of the panel: ZHENG Zhi Primary examiner: GAO Weiwei Examiner: CAO Juan
Reexamination and Invalidation Department of the Patent Office
201019 Mail Address for written application and replies: the Receiving Section of the Reexamination and Invalidation
Department of the Patent Office of SIPO, 6#, Xitucheng Road, Jimenqiao, Haidian District, Beijing 100088, China
2019.4 Any electronic application shall be filed in form of electronic documents through electronic patent application system.
Unless otherwise provided, documents filed in form of others like a written one shall be deemed not to have been filed.
1/8
P.R.C.
2/8
P.R.C.
Examination Decisions on Request for Invalidation of SIPO (No. 52399)

Number of case No. 4W112514
Decision date December 06, 2021
Title of invention creation IMPROVED INTERPOLATION OF VIDEO COMPRESSION
FRAME
IPC H04N19/147,H04N19/51H04N19/513,H04N19/61 ， H04N19/114
， H04N19/117H04N19/137H04N19/186,H04N19/162,
H04N19/18H04N19/17H0419/48H04N19/44H04N19/82
H04N19/433，H04N19/573，H04N19/58，H04N 19/577
Petitioner of invalidation United Patent Co., Ltd.
Patentee Dolby Laboratories Inc.
Patent number 201110166809.9
Application date June 27, 2003
Priority date June 28, 2002
Authorization announcement February 10, 2016
date
Date of request for June 09, 2021
invalidation
Legal basis Article 22, Paragraph 3 of the Patent Law
Key points of decisions:
During understanding the scope of protection of the claims, the protection scope shall be
determined by the content of the claims, the embodiments in the specification is to illustrating
preferred specific implementation mode. In the case that multiple examples being provided in the
specification, the protection scope of claims should be based on comprehensive consideration of
the written content of the claims. Meanwhile, the specific embodiment(s) enabling or summarizing
corresponding claims under the same technical concept should be also considered.
3/8
P.R.C.
I. Cause of action
The Request for Invalidation Announcement relates to an invention patent (hereinafter referred
to as the present patent) with the patent No. 201110166809.8, and entitled "IMPROVED
INTERPOLATION OF VIDEO COMPRESSION FRAME." The filing date of the present patent is
27 June 2003, the priority date is 28 June 2002, and the authorization announcement date is 10
February 2016. The patentee is Dolby Laboratories Inc. The contents of the claims of the present
patent at the time of authorization announcement are as follows:
"1. A computer-implemented method for video image decoding in a video image compression
system having a decoder, comprising:
providing an encoded bitstream of a frame having an image region, the frame having bi-
directionally predicted frames and referenceable frames; and
decoding an image region of at least one bi-directionally predicted frame by referring to two or
more referenceable frames in the bitstream, wherein the decoding comprises using a scaled motion
vector which is obtained by applying a frame scale fraction to motion vectors from selected image
regions of the two or more referenceable frames, wherein the frame scale fraction is derived based
on the relative position of the at least one bi-directionally predicted frame with respect to each of
the two or more referenceable frames;
each of the frames comprises pixel values arranged in a macroblock.
2. The computer-implemented method according to Claim 1, wherein one of the referenceable
frames is spaced apart from the at least one bi-directionally predicted frame by at least one
intervening referenceable frame.
3. The computer-implemented method according to Claim 1, wherein one of the subsequent
referenceable frames is spaced apart from the at least one bi-directionally predicted frame by at
least two intervening referenceable frames.
4. A method for video image compression using a video image compression system,
comprising:
providing a sequence of a frame having an image region, the frame having bi-directionally
predicted frames and referenceable frames; and
encoding, by an encoder, an image region of at least one bi-directionally predicted frame by
referring to two or more referenceable frames in the sequence, wherein the encoding comprises
encoding using a scaled motion vector, the scaled motion vector being obtained by applying a frame
scale fraction to motion vectors from selected image regions of the two or more referenceable
frames; wherein the frame scale fraction is derived based on the relative position of the at least one
bi-directionally predicted frame with respect to each of the two or more referenceable frames;
4/8
P.R.C.
each of the frames comprises pixel values arranged in a macroblock.

5. The method according to Claim 4, wherein one of the referenceable frames is spaced apart
from the at least one bi-directionally predicted frame by at least one intervening referenceable
frame.
6. The method according to Claim 4, further comprising using a decoder in the system, to
decode at least encoded image region using the scaled motion vector.
7. The method according to Claim 4, wherein one of the subsequent referenceable frames is
spaced apart from the at least one bi-directionally predicted frame by at least two intervening
referenceable frames."
United Patent Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) submitted a Request for
Invalidation Announcement to China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) on 09
June 2021 on the grounds that Claims 1-7 of the present patent do not conform to Paragraph 3,
Article 22 of the Patent Law, requesting for invalidating Claims 1-7 of the present patent, while
submitting the following evidences:
Evidence 1: US6404813B1;
Evidence 2: EP0782343A2;
Evidence 3: US2002/0027955A1; and
Evidence 4: partial Chinese translations of Evidence 1 and Evidence 2.
The petitioner considers that: Claims 1, 4, and 6 do not conform to the inventiveness
requirements set forth in Paragraph 3, Article 22 of the Patent Law with respect to Evidence 1 or the
combination of Evidence 2 and Evidence 1, and Claims 2, 3, 5, and 7 do not conform to the
inventiveness requirements set forth in Paragraph 3, Article 22 of the Patent Law with respect to the
combination of Evidence 1 and Evidence 3 or the combination of Evidence 2, Evidence 1, and
Evidence 3.
Since the Request for Invalidation Announcement is qualified in formal examination, the
CNIPA accepted the Request for Invalidation Announcement on 17 June 2021 and transferred the
Request for Invalidation Announcement and a copy of the evidences to the patentee, while
establishing a collegial panel for examining the present application.
Regarding the Request for Invalidation Announcement, the patentee submitted a Statement of
Responses on 02 August 2021, and considered that the petitioner does not provide Chinese
translation of Evidence 3. Therefore, Evidence 3 should not be considered, and Claims 1-7 of the
present patent conform to Paragraph 3, Article 22 of the Patent Law. Moreover, the patentee
submitted supplementary translations of Evidence 1 and Evidence 2, and added Chinese translations
of lines 38-43 in column 12 of Evidence 1, and Chinese translations of lines 10-29 on page 3 of
Evidence 2.
5/8
P.R.C.
The collegial panel issued a Notification of Oral Heading to both parties on 06 August 2021,
and scheduled to hold an oral heading on 22 September 2021.
The petitioner submitted a Supplementary Statement of Responses on 17 September 2021,
insisted on the ground for the request for invalidation, and attached partial translations of Evidence
3 to the Statement of Responses.
The oral hearing was held as scheduled, and both parties entrusted their agents to attend it.
During the oral hearing, the following matters were clarified:
(1) The parties had no objection to the identity and qualification of the attendants of the
opposite parties, and no request for withdrawal of the collegial panel members and clerk.
(2) The collegial panel forwarded the Supplementary Statement of Responses submitted by the
petitioner on 17 September 2021 to the patentee by e-mail, and also informed the patentee that no
further transmission were made after the oral heading was ended, and the time limit for the written
reply was not be given to the patentee. The patentee had no objection to this.
(3) The patentee submitted a Supplementary Statement of Responses on 17 September 2021,
and stated in the oral heading that the Statement of Responses was only for reference by the
collegial panel, and the collegial panel forwarded the Statement of Responses to the petitioner in
court.
(4) Regarding the evidences submitted by the petitioner, the patentee had no objection to the
authenticity and publication date of Evidence 1 and Evidence 2, and no objection to Chinese
translations of Evidence 1 and Evidence 2 submitted by the petitioner. The patentee considered that
Chinese translations of Evidence 3 were not submitted, and therefore, Evidence 3 should not be
considered. The patentee added Chinese translations of lines 38-43 in column 12 of Evidence 1,
and Chinese translations of lines 10-29 on page 3 of Evidence 2. The petitioner had no objection to
this.
(5) The collegial panel stated during the oral proceeding that:
① The petitioner did not submit Chinese translations of Evidence 3 within the specified time
limit, or the title of invention, the publication time, and the used Chinese translations of Fig. 2B of
Evidence 3. Evidence 3 was considered not to be submitted, and therefore were not accepted.
② Regarding Evidence 1 and Evidence 2 used in the present application, the corresponding
Chinese translations thereof are based on Chinese translations respectively submitted by the
petitioner and the patentee.
(6) The petitioner stated in court that the ground for invalidation was that: Claims 1-7 do not
conform to the inventiveness requirements with respect to Evidence 1 or the combination of
Evidence 1 and Evidence 2.
(7) Both parties fully presented their views in court while adhering to their written opinions.
6/8
P.R.C.
At this point, the collegial panel held that facts of the present application were clear, and could
make an examination decision.
II. Grounds for decision
1. Basis of examination
The text on which the examination decision of the Request for Invalidation Announcement is
based is the authorization announcement text of the present patent.
In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Transitional Measures on the
Implementation of the Amended Patent Law and the Transitional Measures on the Implementation
of the Amended Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law, the examination on the Request for
Invalidation Announcement applies to the Patent Law amended for the second time on 25 August
2000 and the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law amended for the first time on 28
December 2002.
2. Ascertaining of evidence
Both Evidence 1 and Evidence 2 are patent documents. The patentee had no objection to the
authenticity and publication date thereof. Upon verification, the collegial panel accepted that. The
publication date of both Evidence 1 and Evidence 2 is earlier than the filing date of the present
patent, and Evidence 1 and Evidence 2 can be used as the prior arts for making comments on the
inventiveness requirements of the claims of the present patent. The patentee and the petitioner had
no objection to Chinse translations submitted by the opposite parties. The contents disclosed in
Evidence 1 and Evidence 2 are based on Chinese translations respectively submitted by the
petitioner and the patentee.
3. Regarding Paragraph 3, Article 22 of the Patent Law
Paragraph 3, Article 22 of the Patent Law stipulates: creativity means that, compared with the
existing technologies, the invention possesses prominent substantive features and indicates
remarkable advancements, and the utility model possesses substantive features and indicates
advancements..
3.1 Claim 1
Claim 1 seeks to protect a computer-implemented method for video image decoding in a video
image compression system having a decoder, and comprises two parallel technical solutions: the
first technical solution is "two referenceable frames in a reference bitstream of bi-directionally
predicted frames," and the second technical solution is "a plurality of referenceable frames in a
reference bitstream of bi-directionally predicted frames."
3.1.1 First technical solution of Claim 1
7/8
P.R.C.
Evidence 2 discloses a novel predictive coding method (please refer to the abstract, lines 25-34
and 39-45 on page 2, lines 3-7 on page 3, lines 1, 2, and 26-28 on page 4, and line 57 on page 4 to
line 3 on page 5 of the specification submitted by the petitioner of Evidence 2, and lines 10-29 on
page 3 of the specification submitted by the patentee):
a new predictive coding is used to increase the temporal frame rate and coding efficiency
without introducing excessive delay. Currently the motion vector for the blocks in the bi-
directionally predicted frame is derived from the motion vector of the corresponding block in the
forward predicted frame using a linear motion model. This however is not effective when the
motion in the image sequence is not linear. According to this invention, the efficiency of this
method can be further improved if a non-linear motion model is used. In this model a delta motion
vector is added to or subtracted from the derived forward and backward motion vector, respectively.
The encoder performs an additional search to determine if there is a need for the delta motion
vector. The presence of this delta motion vector in the transmitted bitstream is signaled to the
decoder which then takes the appropriate action to make use of the delta motion vector to derive the
effective forward and backward motion vectors for the bi-directionally predicted block.
Fig. 2a shows the PB-frame prediction. A frame consists of two pictures being coded as one
unit. The name PB comes from the name of picture types in MPEG where there are P-frames and
B-frames. Thus a PB-frame consists of one P-frame which is predicted from the last decoded P-
frame and one B-frame which is predicted both from the last decoded P-frame and the P-frame
currently being decoded. This last picture is called B-frame because parts of it may be bi-
directionally predicted from the past and future P-frame (the P-frame corresponds to the
referenceable frame; the B-frame corresponds to the bi-directionally predicted frame, i.e., disclosing
that the frame has bi-directionally predicted frames and referenceable frames; parts of the B-frame
correspond to an image region of at least one bi-directionally predicted frame; parts of the B-frame
may be bi-directionally predicted from the past and future P-frame, which discloses decoding an
image region of at least one bi-directionally predicted frame by referring to two or more
referenceable frames in the bitstream).
Fig. 2b shows the forward and bi-directional prediction for a block in the B-frame (hereafter
referred to as a B-block). Only the region that overlaps with the corresponding block in the current
P-frame (hereafter referred to as the P-block) is bi-directionally predicted. The rest of the B-block
is forward predicted from the previous frame. Thus, only the previous frame is required in the
frame store. The information from the P-frame is obtained from the P-block currently being
decoded.
In the PB-block only the motion vectors for the P-block is transmitted to the decoder. The
forward and backward motion vectors for the B-block is derived from the P motion vectors. A
linear motion model is used and the temporal reference of the B and P frame is used to scale the
8/8
P.R.C.
motion vector appropriately. Fig. 3a depicts the motion vector scaling and the formula is shown
below:
,
wherein MV is the motion vector of the P-block,
MVF and MVB are the forward and backward motion vectors for the B-block,
TRB is the increment in the temporal reference from the last P-frame to the current B-frame,
and
TRP is the increment in the temporal reference from the last P-frame to the current P-frame.
In order to solve the first problem, the present invention employs a delta motion vector to
compensate for the non-linear motion. Thus it becomes necessary for the encoder to perform an
additional motion search to obtain the optimum delta motion vector that when added to the derived
motion vectors would result in the best match in the prediction. This delta motion vectors are
transmitted to the decoder at the block level only when necessary. A flag is used to indicate to the
decoder if there are delta motion vectors present for the B-block.
Fig. 3a shows the linear motion model used for the derivation of the forward and backward
motion vectors from the P-block motion vector and the temporal reference information. As
illustrated in Fig. 3b, this model breaks down when the motion is not linear. The derived forward
and backward motion vector is different from the actual motion vector when the motion is not
linear. This is especially true when objects in the scene are moving at changing velocities.
In the present invention the problem is solved by adding a small delta motion vector to the
derived motion vector to compensate for the difference between the derived and true motion vector.
Therefore the equations in (1) and (2) are now replaced by equations (3) and (4), respectively.
,
wherein MV is the motion vector of the P-block,
MVDelta is the delta motion vector,
MVF and MVB are the new forward and backward motion vectors for the B-block according to
the current invention,
TRB is the increment in the temporal reference from the last P-frame to the current B-frame,
and
TRP is the increment in the temporal reference from the last P-frame to the current P-frame.
9/8
P.R.C.
The signal is then passed through line 13 to the Block Sampling module 4, where it is
partitioned into spatially non-overlapping blocks of pixel data for further processing.
The delta motion vector value that gives the best prediction in terms of the smallest mean
absolute difference in the pixel values of the B-block and the prediction block is chosen.
Fig. 6 shows the functional block diagram for the decoder. The Input Bit Stream 31, is passed
to the Variable Length & Run Length Decoding module 32. The block and side information are
extracted in this module. If the frame is a PB-frame then the bitstream is checked if any delta
motion vector and/or quantized residual error coefficients present. The output of the module 32, is
passed through line 37 to the Inverse Quantisation module 33. The output of the Inverse
Quantization 33, is then passed through line 38 to the Inverse DCT module 34. Here the
coefficients are transformed back into the pixel values (the functional block diagram and the Input
Bit Stream of the decoder disclose a computer-implemented method for video image decoding in a
video image compression system having a decoder, comprising providing an encoded bitstream of a
frame having an image region).
The patentee considered that: according to Fig. 15 and paragraphs [0175] and [0208] of the
specification of the present patent, the feature of Claim 1 of "motion vectors from selected image
regions of two or more referenceable frames" means that: from two or more motion vectors, i.e., the
number of motion vectors is not one, and the motion vectors are from two or more. However, in
Evidence 2, MV is the motion vector of a single P-block. Therefore, Evidence 2 does not disclose
the feature that "the scaled motion vector is obtained by applying a frame scale fraction to motion
vectors from selected image regions of the two or more referenceable frames."
With this regard, the collegial panel considered that:
The contents of the claims are usually the bases of understanding the scopes of protection of
the claims. Embodiments of the specification are exemplary illustrations of preferred detailed
embodiments of the invention or the utility model. Under the condition that the specification
provides a plurality of embodiments, the textual recitations of the claims and the formation of the
claims by reasonably summarizing the solutions described in which embodiment(s) in the same
technical concept should be comprehensively considered in understanding the scopes of protection
of the claims.
Specifically, regarding the present application:
First, regarding the feature that "the scaled motion vector is obtained by applying a frame scale
fraction to motion vectors from selected image regions of the two or more referenceable frames,"
"two or more" is close to "referenceable frame" and "two or more referenceable frames" in the
feature of Claim 1 of "decoding an image region of at least one bi-directionally predicted frame by
referring to two or more referenceable frames in the bitstream" should be the antecedent basis of
"the two or more referenceable frames" in the abovementioned feature. Therefore, based on
10/8
P.R.C.
Chinese language habits, the feature should be understood as "two or more referenceable frames"
instead of "two or more motion vectors."
Secondly, referring to paragraphs [0164]-[0188] of the specification and seven embodiments of
corresponding Figs. 12-18 of the present patent, paragraph [0164] of the specification recites a first
extension approach of the direct mode in the B-frame macroblock: "as another aspect of the present
invention, this concept can be extended to direct to B frame references that are one or more n-away
from P frames, which in turn refer to one or more preceding or subsequent P frames or I frames, and
the frame scale fraction is determined by considering the frame distance." The extension approach
corresponds to two embodiments in Figs. 12 and 13. Paragraph [0169] of the specification recites a
second extension approach of the direct mode in the B-frame macroblock: "in addition, another
aspect of the present invention is to allow the direct mode to be applied to a plurality of interpolated
motion vector references for a P frame. For example, if a P frame is interpolated from the most
recent and next most recent previous P frames, the direct mode reference in accordance with this
aspect of the present invention allows interpolation mixing for each multi-reference direct mode B-
frame macroblock. Typically, two or more motion vectors of a P frame can be applied with a
suitable frame scale fraction. The two or more frame-distance-corrected motion vectors can be used
with a corresponding interpolation weight of each B-frame that refers to or directs to that P-frame
(as described below) to generate interpolated B frame macroblock motion compensation." The
extension approach corresponds to two embodiments in Figs. 14 and 15. Paragraph [0183] of the
specification recites a third extension approach of the direct mode in the B-frame macroblock:
"direct mode coding of B frames in MPEG-4 always uses the motion vectors of subsequent P
frames as a reference. In accordance with another aspect of the present invention, it is also possible
for a B frame to reference motion vectors of coexisting macroblocks of previous P frames, which
sometimes prove a beneficial choice for direct mode coding references. If so, the motion vector
frame scale fraction will be greater than 1 when the next most recent previous P frame is referenced
by the motion vector of the most recent previous P frame. Fig. 16 shows a P-frame and a B-frame
sequence in which the most recent previous P-frame has a motion vector that refers to the previous
P-frame. In this example, B frame 1600 refers to 1-away P frame P2. The motion vector mv of the
frame P2 refers to the next previous P frame P1 (relative to the B frame 1600, 2-away). The figure
shows the appropriate frame scale fraction." The extension approach corresponds to three
embodiments in Figs. 16-18. In view of the above, in order to solve the technical problem that the
direct mode of the traditional B frame only uses motion vectors of subsequent P frames as a
reference, the present patent expands the direct mode in three ways, i.e., "the subsequent P frame
directs to the next most recent previous P frame", "reference by motion vectors of a plurality of
differences of a P frame," and "the B frame refers to the previous P frame." Therefore, "one
referenceable frame" in the original direct mode is expanded as "two or more referenceable frames"
to apply the frame scale fraction to the motion vectors. The technical solution is simultaneously
applied to one or more motion vectors instead of being limited to more than two motion vectors.
11/8
P.R.C.
Therefore, based on the seven embodiments, persons skilled in the art could reasonably obtain by
summarization the technical solution of applying the frame scale fraction to the motion vector by
means of "two or more referenceable frames."
Thirdly, if the claim is expected to only seek to protect the technical solution of "two or more
motion vectors," the specification also provides a clear description mode. For example, paragraph
[0029] of the specification clearly recites "a video image compression system having a sequence of
referenceable frames and bi-directionally predicted frames comprising image regions, wherein at
least one image region of at least one bi-directionally predicted frame is encoded to comprise at
least two or more motion vectors, and each such motion vector is referenced in a corresponding
image in at least one referenceable frame." Paragraph [0207] of the specification clearly recites
"using this aspect of the present invention, it is possible to have two or more motion vectors in both
forward and backward directions, and therefore, prediction is made in both directions at the same
time." However, the abovementioned description mode is not used in the claims.
By comprehensively considering the abovementioned contents, the scope of protection of
Claim 1 is formed by summarizing paragraphs [0166]-[0188] of the specification and seven
embodiments of corresponding Figs. 12-18 of the present patent, and the understanding complies
with the textual recitations of Claim 1. Therefore, it is not appropriate that the patentee
interpretated in a limited way the scope of protection of Claim 1 of the present patent to only
correspond to the embodiment corresponding to Fig. 15 of the specification of the present patent in
the examination process of the Request for Invalidation Announcement. The collegial panel did not
agree with this.
Regarding Evidence 2, the collegial panel considered that: it can be obtained from simple
transformations of formulas (1) and (2) that the forward motion vector MV F of the B-block is equal
to (TRB/TRP)×MV; the backward motion vector MVB of the B-block is equal to MVB=((TRB-
TRP)/TRP)×MV; it can be known from Fig. 2a, Fig. 2b, and descriptions of parameters of formulas
(1) and (2) that the I-frame, the P-frame, and the B-frame are arranged in time sequence; the
increment in the temporal reference is the relative position of the frame; TRB is the increment in the
temporal reference from the last P-frame to the current P-frame; TR P is the increment in the
temporal reference from the last P-frame to the current P-frame; therefore, (TRB/TRP) and (TRB-
TRP)/TRP correspond to the frame scale fraction, and the frame scale fraction is derived from the
relative position of the frame; MV F and MVB correspond to the scaled motion vectors. Therefore,
Evidence 2 discloses the feature that "the decoding comprises using a scaled motion vector which is
obtained by applying a frame scale fraction to motion vectors from selected image regions of the
two referenceable frames, wherein the frame scale fraction is derived based on the relative position
of the at least one bi-directionally predicted frame with respect to each of the two referenceable
frames."
12/8
P.R.C.
Upon comparison, the distinguishing feature between the first technical solution of Claim 1
and the technical contents disclosed in Evidence 2 is: wherein each of the frames comprises pixel
values arranged in a macroblock. Based on the abovementioned distinguishing feature, it can be
determined that the technical problem actually solved by Claim 1 is how to select the object for the
B-frame prediction.
Regarding the abovementioned distinguishing feature, Evidence 1 discloses the following
technical contents (please refer to the abstract, and lines 37-41 in column 2 and lines 7-5 in column
5 of the specification of Evidence 1 submitted by the petitioner): provided is a method for decoding
a bitstream as an encoded image. The method comprises the following steps: performing direct
decoding on the bitstream to form a plurality of transform coefficients and a plurality of motion
vectors; and performing inverse transformation on the plurality of transform coefficients to form a
plurality of error blocks; determining a plurality of prediction blocks based on bidirectional motion
estimation using motion vectors, the bidirectional motion estimation comprising a direct prediction
mode and a second prediction mode; and adding the plurality of error blocks to the plurality of
prediction blocks to form an image. The second prediction mode can comprise forward, backward,
and interpolation prediction modes. Furthermore, in order to ensure high coding efficiency and
quality, the prediction mode of the present invention is to combine various types of system
requirements when blocks to be encoded are pixels arranged into macroblocks. The luminance
component of the macroblock 403 is composed of blocks 404, 407, 405, and 409.
In view of the above, Evidence 1 also relates to improving B-frame prediction of the video
compression frame in an encoding and decoding system, and Evidence 1, the present patent and
Evidence 2 belong to the same technical field. Moreover, Evidence 1 discloses "wherein each of
the frames comprises pixel values arranged in a macroblock." On the basis of the technical contents
disclosed in Evidence 2, persons skilled in the art would be motivated to define each of the frames
to comprise pixel values arranged in a macroblock during B-frame prediction by combining
Evidence 2 and the technical measure disclosed in Evidence 1. Therefore, the first technical
solution of Claim 1 neither has prominent substantive features, nor represents a notable progress
with respect to the combination of Evidence 2 and Evidence 1, and thus does not conform to the
inventiveness requirements set forth in Paragraph 3, Article 22 of the Patent Law.
3.1.2 Regarding second technical solution of Claim 1
Upon comparison, the distinguishing features between the second technical solution of Claim 1
and the technical contents disclosed in Evidence 2 are: (1) a plurality of referenceable frames can be
comprised; (2) wherein each of the frames comprises pixel values arranged in a macroblock. Based
on the abovementioned distinguishing features, it can be determined that the technical problem
actually solved by Claim 1 is how to perform the B-frame prediction.
Regarding the distinguishing feature (1), it is well-known in the art that selecting more
reference frames for bi-directionally predicted frames in an image sequence can improve the
13/8
P.R.C.
encoding compression efficiency of the image. Therefore, persons skilled in the art would be
motivated to select the number of bi-directionally predicted frames and I-frame or P-frame
reference frames thereof according to requirements for actual applications. With reference to the
comments above, the distinguishing feature (2) is disclosed in Evidence 1. Therefore, Claim 1
neither has prominent substantive features, nor represents a notable progress with respect to the
combination of Evidence 2, Evidence 1, and common knowledge in the art, and thus does not
conform to the inventiveness requirements set forth in Paragraph 3, Article 22 of the Patent Law.
3.2 Claims 2 and 3
Claims 2 and 3 depend on Claim 1. It is well-known in the art that selecting more reference
frames for bi-directionally predicted frames in an image sequence can improve the encoding
compression efficiency of the image, and the encoding and decoding order of the reference frames
in the image sequence are relevant to the selected reference frames. Therefore, persons skilled in
the art would be motivated to select the number and order of bi-directionally predicted frames and I-
frame or P-frame reference frames thereof according to requirements for actual applications.
Therefore, since Claim 1 upon which Claims 2 and 3 depend does not conform to the inventiveness
requirements, Claims 2 and 3 do not conform to the inventiveness requirements set forth in
Paragraph 3, Article 22 of the Patent Law, either.
3.3 Claim 4
Claim 4 seeks to protect a method for video image compression using a video image
compression system, which is an inverse process of a method claim having a decoder in Claim 1.
Moreover, Evidence 2 also discloses a predictive coding method (please refer to the same source as
mentioned above). Therefore, with reference to the above comments in section 3.1, it can be known
that Claim 4 neither has prominent substantive features, nor represents a notable progress with
respect to the combination of Evidence 2 and Evidence 1, or the combination of Evidence 2,
Evidence 1, and common knowledge in the art, and thus does not conform to the inventiveness
requirements set forth in Paragraph 3, Article 22 of the Patent Law.
3.4 Claims 5 and 7
Claims 5 and 7 depend on Claim 4. It is well-known in the art that selecting more reference
frames for bi-directionally predicted frames in an image sequence can improve the encoding
compression efficiency of the image, and the encoding and decoding order of the reference frames
in the image sequence are relevant to the selected reference frames. Therefore, persons skilled in
the art would be motivated to select the number and order of bi-directionally predicted frames and I-
frame or P-frame reference frames thereof according to requirements for actual applications.
Therefore, since Claim 4 upon which Claims 5 and 7 depend does not conform to the inventiveness
requirements, Claims 5 and 7 do not conform to the inventiveness requirements set forth in
Paragraph 3, Article 22 of the Patent Law, either.
14/8
P.R.C.
3.5 Claim 6
Claim 6 depends on Claim 4, and the additional technical features of Claim 6 are disclosed in
Evidence 2 (please refer to line 57 on page 4 to line 3 on page 5, and Fig. 6 of Evidence 2): Fig. 6
shows the functional block diagram for the decoder. The Input Bit Stream 31, is passed to the
Variable Length & Run Length Decoding module 32. The block and side information are extracted
in this module. If the frame is a PB-frame then the bitstream is checked if any delta motion vector
and/or quantized residual error coefficients present. The output of the module 32, is passed through
line 37 to the Inverse Quantisation module 33. The output of the Inverse Quantization 33, is then
passed through line 38 to the Inverse DCT module 34. Here the coefficients are transformed back
into the pixel values. Therefore, since Claim 4 upon which Claim 6 depends does not conform to
the inventiveness requirements, Claim 6 does not conform to the inventiveness requirements set
forth in Paragraph 3, Article 22 of the Patent Law, either.
The grounds for invalidation that Claims 1-7 do not conform to Paragraph 3, Article 22
proposed by the petitioner are persuasive. Therefore, the collegial panel does not make comments
on other grounds for invalidation and evidences proposed by the petitioner.
III. Decision
It is announced that the patent right of the invention patent No. 201110166809.8 is invalid.
Where any party concerned is not satisfied with the decision, such party may, within three
months from receipt of the decision, file a lawsuit with Beijing Intellectual Property Court, in
accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 2, Article 46 of the Patent Law. According to the
provision of this paragraph, after one party files a lawsuit, the other party shall appear as a third
party in the legal proceedings.
Head of the collegial panel: ZHENG Zhi

Primary examiner: GAO Weiwei
Assistant examiner: CAO Juan
15/8
P.R.C.
16/8

State Intellectual Property Office of P.R.C

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

State Intellectual Property Office of P.R.C

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

State Intellectual Property Office of

Application number or patent Issuing serial number: 2021121300941510

Examination Decisions on Request for Invalidation

Reexamination and Invalidation Department of the Patent Office

Examination Decisions on Request for Invalidation of SIPO (No. 52399)

each of the frames comprises pixel values arranged in a macroblock.

Head of the collegial panel: ZHENG Zhi

Reexamination and Invalidation Department of the Patent Office

You might also like