Ex Parte Beer-Gingold et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 12, 2018

14131368 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2018)

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.
14/131,368 01/07/2014 Shlomo Beer-Gingold NM46052EH 3908
34814 7590 01/17/2018
NXP-LARSON NEWMAN, LLP
6501 William Cannon Drive West
Austin, TX 78735
EXAMINER
BECK, LERON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/17/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ip. department .u s @ nxp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHLOMO BEER-GINGOLD, OFER NAAMAN, and
MICHAEL ZARUBINSKY
Appeal 2017-009055
Application 14/131,368
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, AARON W. MOORE and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-009055
Application 14/131,368
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-3, 6, 7, 13-16, 18-20, and 23-25. Claims 4, 8-12, and 21 have
been cancelled. App. Br. 7-9. Claims 5, 17, 22, and 26 are objected to.
Final Act. 7-9. Claim 27 is allowable. Advisory Act. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Representative Claim
Representative claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis
added):
1. A method for processing an image, the method
comprising:
receiving an image at a processing unit;
encoding the image as a plurality of components;
deriving an exponent, E, for each respective component,
C, of the plurality of components, and associating the
exponent, E, with only its respective component, C, of the
plurality of components;
deriving mantissas wherein at least an approximation of
each component, C, can be derived from the exponents and
mantissas, and wherein exponent, E, indicates the number of
bits in its accompanying mantissa, M;
compressing at least the exponents; and
storing the exponents and the mantissas in a memory.
1 According to Appellants, the real parties in interest are Freescale
Semiconductor, Inc., NXP N.V., and Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc.
App. Br. 1.
2
Appeal 2017-009055
Application 14/131,368
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 13, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)2 as being anticipated by Mallat et al. (US 2010/0220783 Al; pub.
Sept. 2, 2010).
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 14-16, 18-20, and 23 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Mallat alone or in various
combinations with other references.3
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated because
Mallat fails to disclose the argued limitations?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
Appellants contend4 that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a) because
Mallat does not disclose deriving an exponent, E, for
each respective component, C, of the plurality of components,
and associating the exponent, E, with only its respective
component, C, of the plurality of components, as recited.
2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 13, 24, and 25. Except for
our ultimate decision, the rejection of claims 13, 24, and 25 is not discussed
further herein.
3 As to claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 14-16, 18-20, and 23, our decision as to claim 1 is
determinative. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not
discussed further herein.
4 This contention is determinative as to the rejection of claim 1. Therefore,
Appellants’ other contentions are not discussed herein.
3
Appeal 2017-009055
Application 14/131,368
Instead, Mallat discloses a single exponent that represents a
group of components. For example, Mallat teaches, “The image
coefficients are grouped into relatively small blocks of
coefficients (e.g. 4x4 or 8x8 coefficients) that are each
represented with the same number of bits.” and “Groups of
multiscale (e.g. wavelet) coefficients are represented with a
global exponent, shared with all coefficients with the group, and
individual signed mantissas.” (Mallat, paragraphs [0022 and
0023], emphasis added.
App Br. 4-5.
The Examiner’s response (Ans. 7-9) does not address Appellants’
above argument.
As to Appellants’ above argument, we agree with Appellants that
Mallat does not describe the claim 1 limitation of “deriving an exponent, E,
for each respective component, C, of the plurality of components, and
associating the exponent, E, with only its respective component, C, of the
plurality of components,” as recited in claim 1. Rather, as pointed out by
Appellants, Mallat discloses a single exponent that represents a group of
components. Mallat^22-23.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 13, 24, and 25 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
(2) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 14-16, 18-20, and 23 as being unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) On this record, claims 1-3, 6, 7, 13-16, 18-20, and 23-25 have
not been shown to be unpatentable.
4
Appeal 2017-009055
Application 14/131,368
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-3, 6, 7, 13-16, 18-20, and 23-
25 are reversed.
REVERSED
5