Ex Parte Hahm et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2014

10890865 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/890,865 07/14/2004 Mark D. Hahm 3875.0160001 7768
26111 7590 02/25/2014
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
HOLDER, ANNER N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2014 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 MARK D. HAHM and LI FUNG CHANG
_____________

Appeal 2011-009304
Application 10/890,865
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. EVANS, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 25 and 34 through 36. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2011-009304
Application 10/890,865

2

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for dynamically configuring
video processing circuits which are integrated within a single chip.
Appellants’ Specification 4-5. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and
reproduced below:
1. A method for signal processing, the method comprising:
performing, by one or more processors and/or circuits
integrated within a single chip, functions comprising:
determining a video codec format mode of operation and
a quantization scheme from a plurality of video codec format
modes of operation and a plurality of quantization schemes
based on a received video signal;
configuring a processing network according to said
determined video codec format mode of operation and
quantization scheme and based on whether said received video
signal is to be encoded or decoded; and
processing said received video signal using said
configured processing network.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 5, 12, 13, 17 through 19,
and 34 through 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Konishi
(US 2002/0003576 A1) and Balkanski (US 5,253,078). Answer 4-6.1
The Examiner has rejected claims 6, 7, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Konishi, Balkanski, and Ito (US 6,144,763).
Answer 6-7.

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated January 18,
2011, Reply Brief dated May 4, 2011, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
March 4, 2011.
Appeal 2011-009304
Application 10/890,865

3

The Examiner has rejected claims 8, 9, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Konishi, Balkanski, and Kawai (US 6,952,448
B2). Answer 7-8
The Examiner has rejected claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Konishi, Balkanski, Ito, and Morton (US 6,317,819
B1). Answer 8-9.
The Examiner has rejected claims 10, 11, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Konishi, Balkanski, and Haskell (US
6,654,418 B2). Answer 9-10.
The Examiner has rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Konishi, Balkanski, and Hoogenboom (US 5,675,387).
Answer 10-11.

ISSUE
Appellants presents several arguments on pages 8 through 11 of the
Appeal Brief, directed to the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1,
12, and 36. The issue raised by these arguments which is dispositive of the
appeal is: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Konishi and
Balkanski teaches determining a video codec format mode of operation and
quantization scheme based upon a received video signal?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’
arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Konishi and Balkanski teaches determining a
Appeal 2011-009304
Application 10/890,865

4

video codec format mode of operation and quantization scheme based upon
a received video signal. Each of the independent claims 1, 12, and 36 recites
a limitation directed to automatically making the disputed determination. In
response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner cites to Konishi as
teaching using different codec formats and quantization schemes, based
upon user input and finds that the claim limitation is merely automating this
process. Answer 11-12. Appellants argue that determination made by the
user in Konishi is the user’s preference and is not made based upon the data
in the video signal as claimed. Reply Brief 2. We concur with the
Appellants and thus do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 25 and 34 through 36

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 25 and 34
through 36 is reversed.

REVERSED

gvw