Ex Parte Adams

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2014

11113335 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2014)

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.
11/113,335 04/11/2005 Andrew Adams 14528.00105 4550
16378 7590 04/30/2014
BGL/Broadcom
P.O. Box 10395
Chicago, IL 60610
EXAMINER
TORRENTE, RICHARD T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/30/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANDREW ADAMS
____________

Appeal 2011-006774
Application 11/113,335
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EVANS, and JUSTIN BUSCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 1-202 as anticipated. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.3

1 The Real Party in Interest is Broadcom Corporation. App. Br. 2.
2 App. Br. 5.
3 Our decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed September 27, 2010
(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed February 16, 2011 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer mailed December 16, 2010 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed
December 14, 2009 (“Final Rej.”); and the original Specification filed April
Appeal 2011-006774
Application 11/113,335

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a method and system for spatial prediction in a
video encoder. See Abstract.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is
reproduced below:
1. A method for spatial prediction in a video encoder, said
method comprising:
storing a plurality of instructions in a table, wherein an
instruction performs a correlation between one or more
predetermined weights and one or more video samples; and
executing a current instruction with a controller, thereby
producing a spatial estimate of a current video sample in a
current mode.

Rejections
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Oguz.4 Ans. 4-5.
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
With respect to Claim 1, Appellant contends Oguz does not disclose:
1. “‘storing a plurality of instructions in a table, wherein an instruction
performs a correlation between one or more predetermined weights
and one or more video samples,’” (App. Br. 6); or

11, 2005 (“Spec.”).
4 Oguz et al., US 2006/0013320 A1, published January 19, 2006; filed July
15, 2005; claims the priority of US Provisional Application 60/588,483,
filed July 15, 2004.
Appeal 2011-006774
Application 11/113,335

3
2. “‘executing a current instruction with a controller, thereby producing
a spatial estimate of a current video sample in a current mode.’” App.
Br. 6.
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6-13)
and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-14), the issue presented on appeal is whether
the Examiner erred in finding that Oguz discloses the disputed claim
limitations.

ANALYSIS
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
The Examiner relies of Figures 3, 4, and 5 and paragraph 0060 of
Oguz for the disclosure of a method for spatial prediction in a video encoder
(see Fig. 5). The Examiner finds that the disclosed method comprises:
storing a plurality of instructions in a table (see Figs. 3 and 4), wherein an
instruction performs a correlation between one or more predetermined
weights (see ¶ 0060) and one or more video samples (see Fig. 3, 202) and
executing a current instruction (see Fig. 5, 302 and 400 input to 502),
thereby producing a spatial estimate of a current video sample (see Fig. 5,
504) in a current mode (see Fig. 5, “mode” output from 502). Ans. 4.
Appellant disputes that Figures 3 and 4 and paragraph 0060 of Oguz
teach “storing a plurality of instructions in a table . . . , wherein an
instruction performs a correlation between one or more predetermined
Appeal 2011-006774
Application 11/113,335

4
weights . . . and one or more video samples,” (App. Br. 7) as the Examiner
finds. Ans. 4. Appellant contends that Oguz discloses that “Fig. 3 shows a
detailed diagram of a block and its surrounding neighbor pixels.” App. Br. 7
(citing Oguz, ¶ 0022.) Appellant contends that Oguz discloses that “Fig. 4
shows a directivity mode diagram that illustrates nine directivity modes (0-
9) which are used to describe a directivity characteristic of a block.” App.
Br. 7-8 (citing Oguz, ¶ 0023.) Appellant contends that the cited portions of
Oguz do not relate to storing instructions in a table, but merely show a block
of pixels and illustrate directivity directions. App. Br. 8.
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner finds that Oguz,
Fig. 3, “shows a plurality of instruction of list (table) or pointers (table)
associating neighboring blocks, wherein the Table in ¶ [0133] clearly
discloses ‘storing a plurality of instructions in a table’.” Ans. 6.
Our reading of Oguz accords with that of Appellant. We find no
teaching in any of Figures 3, 4, or 5, or in the associated text of paragraphs
0056 – 0061 that relates to an instruction or to the storage of an instruction
in a table. Claim 1 recites: “storing a plurality of instructions in a table,
wherein an instruction performs a correlation between one or more
predetermined weights and one or more video samples.” Appellant’s
Specification discloses:
FIGURE 2 is a block diagram of an exemplary system 200 for
spatial prediction in accordance with an embodiment of the
present invention. A loadable instruction table 221 holds the
instructions 231, 232, and 246 for each processing element (PE)
201, 202, and 216 in the array of PEs 225.
Appeal 2011-006774
Application 11/113,335

5
Spec. ¶ 0021. The disclosure indicates that what is stored is not merely
“data,” but must be executable:
The instructions may be stored in the memory of an integrated
circuit. An engine for execution of the instructions may also be
a circuit in the integrated circuit.
Spec. ¶ 0021.
The instructions 231, 232, and 246 for each PE 201, 202, and
216 can be output simultaneously so the predictions for each
sample are computed in parallel.
Spec. ¶ 0022. Moreover, the “instruction can contain an opcode and
operands,” (Spec. ¶ 0024) which further differentiates the stored instructions
from general “data.” Appellant further discloses that:
[o]nce the equations are created for the modes, the microcode
source is assembled into object code and can be loaded into the
instruction table for execution.
Spec ¶ 0027.
FIGURE 3 is a flow diagram 300 of an exemplary method for
spatial prediction in accordance with an embodiment of the
present invention.
Spec. ¶ 0028.
Moreover, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the video-
encoding arts would understand the claimed “instruction” to relate to a
video-encoding function within an industry standard. Appellant discloses
Appeal 2011-006774
Application 11/113,335

6
“instructions” in relation to the 9 specified “modes” of “H.264” an industry-
standard for video encoding:5
At 301, store a plurality of instructions in a table, wherein an
instruction performs a correlation between one or more
predetermined weights and one or more video samples. In
H.264, there are 9 modes that are specified. Each mode has a
different weighted combination of neighboring samples. For
fixed-point implementation, a bias term may be added for
rounding. For example, one half may be added to cause
rounding when an operation would otherwise truncate any
fraction less than 1.
Spec. ¶ 0029.
Appellant also discloses that the current instruction is related to the
current mode.
At 303, execute a current instruction, thereby producing a
spatial estimate of a current video sample in a current mode.
The current instruction may be selected according to the current
mode and a relative position of the current video sample.
Instructions may be selected in parallel to enable a
simultaneous generation of outputs.

5 “Instruction,” “mode,” and “correlation” are terms of art within the
“H.264” industry standard. See Vcodex White Paper: A Technical
Introduction to H.264 / AVC:
http://www.vcodex.com/images/uploaded/342454811635986.pdf.

Appeal 2011-006774
Application 11/113,335

7
Spec. ¶ 0030. We find that the claim recitation “instructions,” interpreted in
view of the disclosure, is not merely non-functional descriptive material. Ex
parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883 (BPAI 2008 (precedential). Thus, in order to
anticipate Claim 1 under § 102, the prior art must disclose the storage of
“instructions” in a table and it is not sufficient to disclose the storage of
“data.” We agree with Appellant’s contention that Oguz discloses that “Fig.
3 shows a detailed diagram of a block and its surrounding neighbor
pixels.” App. Br. 7 (citing Oguz, ¶ 0022.) We agree with Appellant’s
contention that Oguz does not disclose storing an executable instruction as
claimed.
Because we find that Oguz fails to disclose the claimed limitation, we
decline to sustain the rejection of independent Claim 1, or of dependent
Claims 2-7, under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 8 AND 14
Appellant argues all claims as a group. App. Br. 12-13. However, we
find that independent Claims 8 and 14 are not commensurate in scope with
Claim 1. Claim 1 recites “storing a plurality of instructions in a table.”
Whereas, Claim 8 recites “an instruction table for storing a plurality of
instructions” and Claim 14 recites “a memory for storing a plurality of
instructions.” Appellant does not dispute that Oguz teaches memory that is
capable of storing instructions. Rather, appellant contends Oguz fails to
teach instructions. App. Br. 7-8.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of independent
Claims 8 and 14. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of dependent Claims 9-
13 and 15-20.
Appeal 2011-006774
Application 11/113,335

8
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is REVERSED.
The rejection of Claims 8-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

cdc