Ex Parte Minagawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 9, 2016

13022800 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/022,800 02/08/2011
23494 7590 06/13/2016
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
P 0 BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yusuke Minagawa
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
TI-65763 7413
EXAMINER
BELA!, NAOD W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2016 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 YUSUKE MINAGA WA and SATORU YAMAUCHI
Appeal2014-008721
Application 13/022,800
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EV ANS, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
Per Curiam.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 7-9, 14, and 15. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 2---6 and 10-13 have been
canceled. Claims App.
We REVERSE.
1 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed December 18, 2013
("App. Br."); Appellants' Reply Brief filed July 9, 2014 ("Reply Br."); and
Examiner's Answer mailed May 9, 2014 ("Ans.").
2 Appellants identify Texas Instruments Incorporated as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-008721
Application 13/022,800
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced
below (with disputed limitations in italics):
1. A method for transcoding a data stream, the method
compnsmg:
receiving the data stream, wherein the data stream
contains periodic time reference values referenced to a first
reference clock;
processing the received data stream to form transcoded
output data stream;
adjusting at least one of the periodic time reference
values in the transcoded output data stream by
resetting a counter upon each reaching of a time
for outputting an output packet of the transcoded output
data stream,
counting clock pulses of the first reference clock in
the counter, and
adding a count value of the counter to a current
received data stream periodic reference value upon each
rising edge of a second reference clock having a
frequency lower than the first reference clock to form an
adjusted periodic time reference value; and
transmitting the output data stream in synchronism with
the second reference clock, wherein the output data stream
contains the adjusted periodic time reference value.
App. Br. 17 (Claims Appendix).
N emiroff et al.
("N emiroff')
Seong et al.
("Seong")
References
US 6, 724,825 Bl
US 2005/0190872 Al
2
Apr. 20, 2004
Sept. 1, 2005
Appeal2014-008721
Application 13/022,800
Maes et al.
("Maes")
N oronha, JR.
("N oronha")
Sekimoto et al.
("Sekimoto")
US 2006/0271365 Al Nov. 30, 2006
US 2010/0008385 Al Jan. 14,2010
US 2010/0328724 Al Dec. 30, 2010
Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1, 7, 9, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Seong, Noronha, and Nemiroff. Ans. 2---6.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Seong, Noronha, Nemiroff, and Sekimoto. Ans. 6-7.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Seong, Noronha, Nemiroff, and Maes. Ans. 7-8.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Seong does not teach "adding a count value of the
counter to a current received data stream periodic reference value," as
recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 15. App. Br. 11. Specifically,
Appellants contend adder 91 of Seong adds addends that are not the same or
similar to the quantities claimed. App. Br. 11 (citing Seong i-f 80).
Appellants note one addend input to adder 91 of Seong is STC 1 which tracks
the program clock reference PCRI. App. Br. 12 (citing Seong Fig. 5, i-f 77).
Appellants further note that Seong teaches the other addend input to the
adder is the total delay count output from the total delay calculator. App.
Br. 12 (citing Seong Fig. 5, i-f 79). Appellants assert the total delay
calculator neither acts as a counter nor stores counts from a counter. Id.; see
also Reply Br. 3--4.
3
Appeal2014-008721
Application 13/022,800
The Examiner finds clock counter 13 in Seong teaches the claimed
"counting clock pulses of the first reference clock in the counter." Ans. 4
(citing Seong i-f 78). However, the Examiner then finds adder 91 of Seong
teaches the claimed "adding a count value of the counter to a current
received data stream periodic reference value" by adding the total delay
count and the PCRl. Ans. 10 (citing Seong Fig. 5). The Examiner explains
"the inputs to the adder 91 are substantially the same quantities as the
claimed quantities." Ans. 10. However, as explained above, the Examiner
relies on clock counter 13 for the count value, and the value output from
clock counter 13 is not an input to adder 91. The Examiner has not
adequately explained how the total delay count teaches the claimed "count
value," which is output from total delay calculator 80. As Appellants note,
Seong teaches "the total delay calculator 80 calculates a total time delay
time 'by summing up buffer delay and look-ahead delay.'" Reply Br. 3
(quoting Seong Fig. 5, i-f 79). We are persuaded the Examiner has not
demonstrated that the clock counter in Seong is connected to the buffer
delay and look-ahead delay combined by the total delay calculator. Reply
Br. 3--4; Seong i-fi-178-79.
As such, we are constrained by the record before us not to sustain the
rejections of claims 1, 9, and 15, as well as the rejections of claims 7 and 8,
which depend from claim 1, and claim 14, which depends from claim 9,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 7-9, 14, and 15.
4
Appeal2014-008721
Application 13/022,800
REVERSED
5