Ex parte Artieri

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 29, 2000

08329945 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 29, 2000)

THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not
written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding
precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 27
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte ALAIN ARTIERI
____________
Appeal No. 1997-2310
Application No. 08/329,945
____________
HEARD: February 10, 2000
____________
Before KRASS, LALL, and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 through 35. In an amendment filed on
March 18, 1996, after the final rejection, appellant canceled
claims 8, 18, and 26. Accordingly, claims 1 through 7, 9
through 17, 19 through 25, and 27 through 35 remain before us
on appeal.
Appeal No. 1997-2310
Application No. 08/329,945
2
Appellant's invention relates to a picture processing
system for decompressing compressed data corresponding to
pictures. The system includes plural memories, each coupled
to a decoder and storing reconstructed data from both the
associated decoder and an adjacent decoder. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as
follows:
1. A system for processing compressed data corresponding
to pictures, the compressed data including a plurality of
slices of data, the system comprising:
a decoder system having an input that receives the
compressed data, the decoder system generating decoded picture
data based upon a current block of the compressed data and a
predictor block of decoded picture data previously decoded by
the decoder;
wherein the decoder system includes a plurality of
decoders and a plurality of picture memories, each of the
plurality of decoders being coupled to a respective one of the
plurality of picture memories, each picture memory of the
plurality of picture memories storing one of the plurality of
slices of data and at least one boundary area of an adjacent
slice of the plurality of slices of data that is decoded by at
least one second decoder of the plurality of decoders.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Retter et al. (Retter) 5,379,070 Jan. 03,
1995
(filed October 02, 1992)
Appeal No. 1997-2310
Application No. 08/329,945
3
Knee et al. (Knee) WO 91/11074 Jul. 07, 1991
Claims 6, 15, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Knee.
Claims 1 through 7, 9 through 17, 19 through 25, and 27
through 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Retter in view of Knee.
Reference is made to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 9,
mailed December 15, 1995), the Examiner's Answer (Paper No.
17, mailed September 30, 1996) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellant's
Brief (Paper No. 16, filed August 21, 1996) and Reply Brief
(Paper No. 18, filed December 2, 1996) for appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse both the anticipation rejection of
claims 6, 15, and 23 and also the obviousness rejection of
claims 1 through 7, 9 through 17, 19 through 25, and 27
through 35.
Appeal No. 1997-2310
Application No. 08/329,945
4
"It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102
can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
element of the claim." In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231
USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik v. American Hoist and Derrick, 730 F.2d 1452,
1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The only limitation
in dispute with respect to the anticipation rejection of
claims 6, 15, and 23 is a memory which stores both
reconstructed data and reconstructed adjacent data. The
examiner states (Answer, page 4) that Knee includes frame
delays 18, 20, and 22, each connected to a decoder, and each
serving "to store and supply both reconstructed data and
reconstructed adjacent data." The examiner contends that each
frame delay supplies adjacent data as the previous store (FDi-
) and supplies reconstructed data as the current store (FD ). 1 i
The examiner concludes that such frame delays meet the claimed
limitation of memories which store both reconstructed data and
reconstructed adjacent data.
Figure 3 of Knee and the accompanying text on page 3
indicate that frame delays 18, 20, and 22 provide previously
compensated data from stripe i of the previous frame, and from
Appeal No. 1997-2310
Application No. 08/329,945
5
adjacent stripes (i-1) and (i+1), respectively, for processing
by sub-decoder i. In other words, each frame delay provides
data from a single stripe of the previous frame, and,
therefore, does not store both reconstructed data and
reconstructed adjacent data. The sub-decoder uses
reconstructed data and reconstructed adjacent data, but there
is no indication that both types of data are stored in the
same memory in Knee. Accordingly, Knee does not disclose
every element of claims 6, 15, and 23, and consequently does
not anticipate claims 6, 15, and 23.
As to the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 7, 9
through 17, 19 through 25, and 27 through 35 over Retter in
view of Knee, the examiner contends (Final Rejection, pages 4-
5, and Answer, pages 5-7) that it would have been obvious to
combine Knee's teaching to use adjacent data for motion
picture processing with Retter's still picture processing
system to allow the device to process both still and motion
pictures. Appellant argues (Brief, page 8) that nothing in
Retter nor Knee would suggest combining a JPEG (still picture)
system with an MPEG (motion picture) system, and that one
Appeal No. 1997-2310
Application No. 08/329,945
6
would turn to Retter alone for still picture processing and to
Knee alone for motion picture processing.
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the
examiner must provide a reason why the skilled artisan would
have been led to modify the prior art or to combine prior art
references to arrive at the claimed invention. Such reason
must stem from some teaching, suggestion or implication in the
prior art as a whole or knowledge generally available to one
having ordinary skill in the art. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1447, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Uniroyal,
Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley, 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438
(Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988). Merely that
the prior art can be modified in the manner suggested by the
examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification. In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-4 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). We agree with appellant that the examiner has
provided no such suggestion from the references to combine the
two different types of processing systems. In fact, as each
reference is limited to either JPEG or MPEG processing, if
Appeal No. 1997-2310
Application No. 08/329,945
7
anything, the prior art would suggest that the two types of
processing are mutually exclusive and not combinable.
In addition, regarding the obviousness rejection of claim
1 and its dependents, the examiner fails to point out in
either the Final Rejection or the Answer what elements are
relied upon for the claimed memories. Each claimed memory
stores a slice of data and the boundary area of an adjacent
slice of data. The examiner (Answer, page 5) explains that
boundary data is necessary for constructing a file in Retter,
since Retter uses "Restart" markers at the end of segments,
but never discusses the storage of such information. Boundary
data may be used for decoding the current stripe without being
stored with the data for the current slice. Further, the
Restart marker in Retter refers to the boundary of a segment
of the current slice and not to a portion of the adjacent
slice.
The examiner (Answer, page 6) contrasts appellant's
storage of adjacent motion data with Retter's "stor[age of]
boundary synchronization data for still picture
reconstruction." Thus, the examiner appears to admit that
Retter does not disclose storage of the boundary area of
Appeal No. 1997-2310
Application No. 08/329,945
8
adjacent stripe data with current data and, therefore, must be
relying on Knee for such memories. However, as detailed
above, such reliance on Knee is misplaced as Knee stores each
slice separately. Accordingly, the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness for claim 1.
Consequently, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1 and
its dependents, claims 2 through 5 and 35.
Similarly, for independent claims 6, 15, and 23 the
examiner fails to point out in either the Final Rejection or
the Answer what elements are relied upon for the claimed
memories. In the claims, each memory stores reconstructed
data with reconstructed adjacent data. The examiner (Final
Rejection, page 4) discusses how adjacent stripe information
must be accessed in decoding the current stripe in Knee.
However, adjacent data may be accessed for decoding the
current stripe without being stored therewith. In contrasting
appellant's storage of adjacent motion data with Retter's
"stor[age of] boundary synchronization data for still picture
reconstruction" (Answer, page 6), the examiner appears to
admit that Retter does not disclose storage of adjacent data
with current data and, therefore, must be relying on Knee for
Appeal No. 1997-2310
Application No. 08/329,945
9
such memories. However, as explained above, such reliance on
Knee is misplaced as Knee stores each slice separately.
Accordingly, the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness for claims 6, 15, and 23.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 6, 15,
and 23, and their dependents, claims 7, 9 through 14, 16, 17,
19 through 22, 24, 25, and 27 through 31.
With respect to independent claim 32, again the examiner
combines Retter with Knee with no suggestion from the prior
art to do so. Furthermore, the examiner completely fails to
address the method steps of claim 32 in both the Final
Rejection and the Answer, and therefore does not meet his
burden to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. We
find no mention of determining vertical amplitudes of motion
vectors nor basing the amount of memory needed on the maximum
vertical amplitude in either Retter (which is limited to the
processing of still pictures) or Knee. Accordingly, we must
reverse the rejection of claim 32 and its dependents, claims
33 and 34.
CONCLUSION
Appeal No. 1997-2310
Application No. 08/329,945
10
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 6, 15, and
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed. The decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 1 through 7, 9 through 17, 19
through 25, and 27 through 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
PARSHOTAM S. LALL ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1997-2310
Application No. 08/329,945
11
DAVID M DRISCOLL
WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS
FEDERAL RESERVE PLAZA
6O0 ATLANTIC AVENUE
BOSTON, MA 02210