Ex Parte Matsuba et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 12, 2017

12137847 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 2017)

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.
12/137,847 06/12/2008 Yasutomo Matsuba TI-63147 8321
23494 7590 07/14/2017
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
DECKER, CASSANDRA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2017 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YASUTOMO MATSUBA and AKIRA OSAMOTO1
Appeal 2015-003874
Application 12/137,847
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 4—8, which constitute all of the claims pending
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Texas Instruments Incorporated as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-003874
Application 12/137,847
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is generally directed to
an apparatus for changing the video bitstream data format from one format
to another format. Spec. p. 2,11. 2—3.2
Claim 4 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and
reproduced below (with the disputed limitations emphasized)'.
4. An apparatus for transcoding from a first video stream
encoded with macroblocks in a normal raster scanning order into
a second video stream encoded with macroblocks in a
macroblock-adaptive field-frame scanning order, comprising:
a decoder including
a first bitstream buffer;
a second bitstream buffer,
a decoder core connected to said first bitstream
buffer and said second bitstream buffer operable to
alternately decode bitstream data stored in said first
bitstream buffer and said second bitstream buffer in a first
video format into corresponding macroblocks, and
a macroblock buffer connected to said decoder core
for storing decoded macroblocks;
an encoder connected to said macroblock buffer and
operable to encode macroblocks into a second video format; and
a direct memory access unit connected to said first
bitstream buffer, said second bitstream buffer, said macroblock
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Action mailed May 6, 2014 (“Final Act.”);
Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed Oct. 1, 2014 (“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s
Answer mailed Dec. 4, 2014 (“Ans.”); Appellants’ Reply Brief filed Feb. 2,
2015 (“Reply Br.”); and, the original Specification filed June 12, 2008
(“Spec.”).
2
Appeal 2015-003874
Application 12/137,847
buffer and said encoder, said direct memory access unit having
an external memory connection for memory transfer to/from an
external memory separate from said macroblock buffer and
operable to
transfer data from an external memory via said
external memory connection to said first bitstream buffer,
transfer data from the external memory via said
external memory connection to said second bitstream
buffer,
transfer data from said macroblock buffer to said
encoder without transfer to or from the external memory,
and
transfer data from said encoder to the external
memory via said external memory connection.
App. Br. 9 (Claims App’x).
References and Rejections on Appeal
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Winger et al. (US 2007/0030904 Al; published Feb. 8,
2007) (“Winger”) and Friel et al. (US 2005/0111835 Al; published May 26,
2005) (“Friel”).
Claims 5—8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Winger, Friel, and Paul et al. (US 7,272,675 Bl; issued
Sept. 18, 2007) (“Paul”).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Briefs and are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Unless
otherwise noted, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken (Final
Act. 2—9) and in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2-4), and we concur with the
3
Appeal 2015-003874
Application 12/137,847
conclusions reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we consider and
highlight specific arguments as presented in the Briefs.
Rejection of Claim 4 under § 103(a)
A. “a second bitstream buffer”
Appellants argue that, although the teaching of paragraph 28 of
Winger “makes a bitstream buffer obvious,” paragraphs 28 and 29 of
Winger, which are cited by the Examiner, “fail to make obvious two
bitstream buffers.” App. Br. 6. Appellants also argue the teaching of Winger
“regarding position of the odd and even macroblocks and repositioning the
buffer portion indicate that Winger [] teaches only a single buffer and not the
first and second buffers claimed.” Reply Br. 2—3 (citing Winger || 28—30).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that Winger teaches separate processing of odd and even row
macroblocks and buffering in memory the position of the decoded odd and
even macroblocks in two separate portions. Ans. 2 (citing Winger || 28—
30). Because Winger teaches buffering the decoded macroblocks in separate
portions, we find Winger at least suggests to a person of ordinary skill “a
second bitstream buffer.” See Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, Inc., 874
F. 2d 804, 807—08 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[T]he question under 35 U.S.C. 103 is
not merely what the references expressly teach but what they would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made.”).
B. “transferring data from said macroblock buffer to said encoder
without transfer to or from the external memory”
Appellants contend Winger does not teach transferring data from the
macroblock buffer to the encoder “without transfer to or from the external
4
Appeal 2015-003874
Application 12/137,847
memory.” App. Br. 7—8. In particular, Appellants argue INTa and INTb
correspond to the decoded macroblock data stored in the macroblock buffer
and, contrary to the disputed limitation, INTa is transferred to, and INTb is
transferred from, memory 126 that is an external memory. Id. (citing Winger
Fig. 2).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that memory module 126 is internal to the transcoder because
Figure 6 of Winger, which shows the transcoder in greater detail, “shows the
memory as item 212 . . . which is internal to the VDSP module comprising
the transcoder, with the memory module being connected to the DMA unit,
items 202 and 204.” Ans. 3. Appellants’ argument that the teaching in
paragraph 86 of Winger that “[i]n one embodiment, the DMEM module 212
may perform the buffering of the memory module 126” makes memory 126
“an external memory excluded in claim 4” is not persuasive. See Reply Br.
3^4 (citing Winger | 86). First, Appellants’ argument is conclusory and
unsupported by any persuasive explanation of why the teaching of paragraph
86 makes memory module 126 an external memory. Second, we find
paragraph 86, which is cited by the Examiner (see Ans. 3), supports the
Examiner’s finding that the DMEM module 212 shown in Figure 6 is the
memory module 126 shown in Figure 2. Regarding the limitation of
transferring data to the encoder “without transfer to or from the external
memory,” we agree with the following findings of the Examiner:
The pixel signals INTa and INTb in Figure 2 correspond to the
claimed macroblocks as stated by applicant in arguments. The
signal INTa is buffered in the memory, which is internal and
which corresponds to the macroblock buffer, prior to transfer to
the encoder. Thus this data transfer is performed without transfer
to or from external memory, as claimed.
5
Appeal 2015-003874
Application 12/137,847
Ans. 4.
For the foregoing reasons, and based on a preponderance of the
evidence, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in (1) finding Winger
teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claim 4, and (2) concluding
the combination of Winger and Friel renders the subject matter of claim 4
obvious under 35 U.S.C.§ 103(a). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 4.
Rejection of Claims 5—83 under § 103(a)
Appellants argue claims 5—84 “are allowable by dependence upon
allowable base claim 4.” See App. Br. 8. We are not persuaded by this
argument because, for the reasons stated supra, we find independent claim 4
is not allowable. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 5—8.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4—8 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
3 Claims 5—8 are rejected under the second-stated ground of rejection.
4 Although Appellants refer to claims 5—9, we assume this is a mistake as
there is no claim 9 on appeal.
6