Ex Parte Laksono

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 14, 2014

11082591 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte INDRA LAKSONO
____________

Appeal 2011-011123
Application 11/082,591
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 31, 32, 34, 37, 38, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 50, 51, 54-71.
Claims 1-30, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42, 45, 48, 49, 52, and 53 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2011-011123
Application 11/082,591

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention “relates generally to multimedia processing and
more particularly to the storage and access of multimedia data.” (Spec. ¶ 1.)
Claim 31 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
31. An integrated circuit (IC) device comprising:
a first host interface configured to couple to a first client
interface of a mass storage device via a first bus, the first host
interface, the first client interface, and the first bus compliant
with at least one of an ATA specification, an SATA
specification, an ATAPI specification, a USB specification, or
an IEEE 1394 specification;
a second client interface configured to couple to a second
host interface of a multimedia processing device via a second
bus, the second client interface, the second host interface, and
the second bus compliant with at least one of an ATA
specification, an SATA specification, an ATAPI specification, a
USB specification, or an IEEE 1394 specification; and
a processing module coupled to the first host interface
and the second client interface, the processing module to
receive a first multimedia data via the second client interface,
perform a first processing operation on the first multimedia data
to generate a first processed multimedia data, provide the first
processed multimedia data to the first host interface for storage
at the mass storage device, subsequently access the first
processed multimedia data from the mass storage device via the
first host interface, perform a second processing operation on
the first processed multimedia data to generate a second
processed multimedia data, and provide the second processed
multimedia data to the multimedia processing device via the
second client interface.
Appeal 2011-011123
Application 11/082,591

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 31, 32, 34, 37, 38, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 50, 51, 54-58, 61, 62, 64,
and 65 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Salmonsen
(US 2004/0049797 Al; Mar. 11, 2004).
Claims 59, 60, 63, and 66-71 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Salmonsen and Russ (US 2006/0095947 A1; May 4,
2006).
ISSUE
The following issue is dispositive of this appeal: Does Salmonsen
teach the “processing module” recited in claim 31?

ANALYSIS
Claim 31 recites a “processing module” that, among other things, (1)
“receive[s] a first multimedia data”; (2) “perform[s] a first processing
operation on the first multimedia data to generate a first processed
multimedia data”; and (3) “perform[s] a second processing operation on the
first processed multimedia data to generate a second processed multimedia
data.” The Examiner found Salmonsen taught the recited processing
module, as Salmonsen disclosed a processor that “executes various
processes, methods, or programs that control operations of the emulator
interface controller to transfer information between a network external to the
device and the content source or communication bus and to perform a wide
variety of other functions.” (Salmonsen ¶ 59 (internal reference numbers
omitted).)
Appellant contends Salmonsen’s processor neither receives nor
processes data as required by claim 31. (Reply Br. 1-2.) Rather, according
Appeal 2011-011123
Application 11/082,591

4
to Appellant, the processor simply controls another device that transfers
data. (Id.)
We agree with Appellant. The cited paragraphs of Salmonsen
disclose a processor “that control[s] operations of the emulator interface
controller to transfer information” and performs other unspecified functions.
(Salmonsen ¶ 59 (internal reference numbers omitted).) The cited
paragraphs do not explicitly disclose that the processor either receives or
processes data as recited in claim 31. We therefore cannot sustain the
rejection of claim 31 and its dependent claims, that is, claims 32, 34, 37, and
38. Because the Examiner relied on this reasoning to reject related
limitations in the remaining independent claims (namely, claims 41, 51, and
68), we cannot sustain the rejections of claims 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 50, 51, and
54-71.

DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claim 31, 32, 34, 37, 38, 41, 43, 44,
46, 47, 50, 51, 54-58, 61, 62, 64, and 65 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We also
REVERSE the rejections of claims 59, 60, 63, and 66-71 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

REVERSED

msc