Ex Parte Pai et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 4, 200910463170 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 4, 2009) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte R. LAKSHMIKANTH PAI, RAVINDRA BIDNUR, SANDEEP BHATIA, L. RAMAKRISHNAN, and VIJAYANAND ARALAGUPPE ____________ Appeal 2008-5276 Application 10/463,170 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Decided: March 4, 20091 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and R. EUGENE VARNDELL, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. VARNDELL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The two-month time period for response or filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 CFR § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery). Appeal 2008-5276 Application 10/463,170 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The invention claimed on appeal relates to a system, method, and apparatus for accessing objects stored in a memory (Spec. 4). Claim 1, which further illustrates and represents the invention claimed on appeal, follows: 1. A method for retrieving an object from memory, said method comprising: fetching one or more data words, each of the data words comprising a plurality of bytes, the object stored starting at a starting byte in a particular one of the data words and ending at an ending byte in another particular one of the data words, wherein there are a first one or more bytes before the starting byte in the particular one of the data words, and wherein there are a second one or more bytes after the ending byte in the particular one of the data words; and overwriting the first one or more bytes before the starting byte in the particular one of the fetched data words, and the second one or more bytes after the ending byte in the another particular one of the fetched data words. The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show unpatentability: Ohgami US 4,700,182 Oct. 13, 1987 Munshi US 6,084,600 Jul. 4, 2000 Nishikawa US 6,750,871 B2 Jun. 15, 2004 Lee US 6,842,219 B2 Jan. 11, 2005 2 Appeal 2008-5276 Application 10/463,170 The Final Rejection mailed on February 24, 2006 set forth five prior art rejections on appeal as follows: 1. Claims 1-3 and 5 were rejected as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Munshi. 2. Claim 4 was rejected as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Munshi and Nishikawa. 3. Claims 6-8, 11-15, and 18-20 were rejected as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Munshi and Lee. 4. Claims 9 and 16 were rejected as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Munshi, Lee, and Ohgami. 5. Claims 10 and 17 were rejected as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Munshi, Lee, and Nishikawa. Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed on July 24, 2007, the Examiner’s Answer mailed on October 31, 2007, and the Reply Brief filed on December 31, 20072. Appellants only argue the patentability of independent claim 1 on appeal (App. Br. 6-12; Reply Br. 6-12). Appellants’ Briefs contain no separate arguments for claims other than claim 1 (App. Br. 6-12; Reply Br. 6-12). Arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make in their Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Accordingly, claims 2, 3, and 5 stand or fall with claim 1. 2 While both the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief have the date of July 25, 2007 on the first page, the USPTO records respectively set forth the filing dates of July 24, 2007 and December 31, 2007 for these papers. In addition, the first page of the Reply Brief is entitled “Appeal Brief.” 3 Appeal 2008-5276 Application 10/463,170 On page 9 in the Reply Brief, Appellants request that the prosecution be reopened because the Examiner allegedly argued a new position in the Examiner's Answer. We have no jurisdiction over this request and make no decision in connection therewith. A request to reopen prosecution is decided by the Examiner or upon petition.3 ISSUES The Examiner identifies where Munshi teaches all limitations in claim 1. Appellants argue that Munshi does not teach the "object" stored starting at a starting byte in a particular one of the data words and ending at an ending byte in another particular one of the data words, as required in claim 1. In addition, Appellants argue that Munshi does not teach "overwriting the first one or more bytes before the starting byte in a particular one of the fetched data words, and the second one or more bytes after the ending byte in the another particular one of the fetched data words," as required in claim 1 on appeal. Based on these contentions, we frame the issue as follows. Under § 102 have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Munshi: (1) teaches the "object" stored starting at a starting byte in a particular one of the data words and ending at an ending byte in another 3 See MPEP § 706.01 (“[T]he Board will not hear or decide issues pertaining to objections and formal matters which are not properly before the Board.”); see also MPEP § 1201 (“The Board will not ordinarily hear a question that should be decided by the Director on petition….”). 4 Appeal 2008-5276 Application 10/463,170 particular one of the data words as required in claim 1 on appeal, and (2) "overwriting the first one or more bytes before the starting byte in a particular one of the fetched data words, and the second one or more bytes after the ending byte in the another particular one of the fetched data words," as required in claim 1 on appeal? FINDINGS OF FACT The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a preponderance of the evidence. 1. It is known in the art that objects are stored in memory and that objects include data structures for compressing video data (Spec. ¶¶ 0005, 0006). 2. It is known in the art that an object can start and end in the middle of different data words (Spec. ¶ 0005; Munshi Fig. 3B). For example, Munshi shows an alignment of pixel data within memory and bitmap words (Fig. 3B). In case 321 of Munshi, the first (Pixel 1) and last pixel (Pixel 5) of a pixel set are arranged in the middle of the data words 1 and 2 (Fig. 3B; col. 6, ll. 56-59). Case 322 of Munshi is similarly arranged (Fig. 3B; col. 6, ll. 60-64). 3. Appellants explain that the bytes before and after the object can comprise all zeros or another pattern indicative of null information (Spec. ¶ 0027). 4. Munshi describes a method for retrieving an object (e.g., block image) from memory (col. 1, ll. 8-12), where pixel data is transferred from main memory to display memory (col. 3, ll. 19-24). The Munshi method 5 Appeal 2008-5276 Application 10/463,170 comprises fetching one or more data words (col. 3, ll. 24-30), each of the data words comprising a plurality of bytes (col. 5, ll. 3-7; col. 6, ll. 38-39; Figs. 3A, 3B). 5. Munshi teaches a moving object (i.e., sprite 102), which includes both patterned (color or opaque) pixels and transparent pixels (Fig. 1; col. 3, ll. 51-53; col. 4, ll. 28-40, 51-52). 6. Munshi teaches that objects are retrieved and fetched from the bitmap data structure 299 and output to the display memory 612 (Figs. 2B, 6; col. 9, ll. 20-22, 37-39). The data structure 299 includes offset addresses (e.g., 211, 221) that indicate the number of bits to be skipped, because the bitmap is transparent in those pixels (col. 5, ll. 26-60). The patterned blocks in bitmap data structure 299 represent contiguous pixels, each of which is separately addressed via an offset, i.e., offset 211, 221 (col. 6, ll. 27-36). 7. Munshi teaches software interpreting the database structure 299 (on the host CPU 601 or graphics interpreter 500) and modifying the pixel values in display memory 612 accordingly (Figs. 5, 6; col. 7, ll. 45-49; col. 9, ll. 37-39). If the initial or final pixels within the set of contiguous pixels within a fast bitmap do not align with the memory word boundaries, then host CPU performs a read-modify-write cycle (col. 9 ll. 39-42). “This leaves those pixels where the bitmap is transparent unmodified” (Figs. 4, 5; col. 9, ll. 42-44). 8. Within the display memory of Munshi, when the bitmap changes location, selected patterned pixels are rewritten while the transparent pixels are not, which necessitates overriding in memory one or more patterned pixels before and after the transparent pixels (col. 5, ll. 47-67; col. 7, ll. 26- 44). 6 Appeal 2008-5276 Application 10/463,170 PRINCIPLES OF LAW “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Anticipation is determined by first construing the claims and then comparing the properly construed claims to the prior art. In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002). During patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation “consistent with the specification.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Claims must be interpreted "in view of the specification" without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Concerning the §103(a) rejections, it is well settled that “[a]nticipation is the epitome of obviousness.” Connell v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983). ANALYSIS As explained by the Examiner, the teachings of Munshi read on the invention claimed on appeal (FF 1-8). Appellants do not establish any error in the findings by the Examiner. Appellants argue that section or offset address 221 in Munshi is not an object (Reply Br. 9). For this reason, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred when finding that Munshi teaches "the object stored starting at a starting byte in a particular one of the data 7 Appeal 2008-5276 Application 10/463,170 words and ending at an ending byte in another particular one of the data words" as required in claim 1 on appeal (Reply Br. 9-10). The term "object" has a broad meaning, which can include data structures for compressing video data (FF 1), transparent pixels (FF 5), and an offset address indicating a number of transparent pixels (FF 6), any of which is found in Munshi. Accordingly, section or offset address 221 of Munshi reads on an object as required in the claims on appeal. Furthermore, Appellants' Specification and Munshi teach it is common in the art for an object to start and end in the middle of different data words (FF 2), as required in claim 1 on appeal. Appellants also argue that bytes 213 and 214 of Munshi are ignored and shown as “do not care” values, and therefore, these bytes are not overwritten (Reply Br. 10). For this reason, Appellants argue that Munshi does not teach "overwriting the first one or more bytes before the starting byte in the particular one of the fetched data words, and the second one or more bytes after the ending byte in the another particular one of the fetched data words," as required in claim 1 on appeal. However, bytes 213 and 214 (ignore or do not care value bytes) of Munshi are no different than the bytes before or after the pattern in the claims on appeal, which can comprise all zeros or other pattern indicative of null information, as described in Appellants' Specification (FF 3). Since these bytes in Munshi and Appellants' claims can be the same value, Appellants' arguments establish no error in the Examiner's factual findings. Appellants further argue that the data structure 299 and the display memory 612 of Munshi are different structures (App. Br. 10). For this reason, Appellants argue that Munshi does not teach "overwriting the first 8 Appeal 2008-5276 Application 10/463,170 one or more bytes before the starting byte in the particular one of the fetched data words, and the second one or more bytes after the ending byte in another particular one of the fetched data words," as required in claim 1 on appeal (App. Br. 10). However, claim 1 on appeal does not require that the object is stored in the display memory, and we cannot read this limitation into the claim. Since Appellants' allegation of error does not correspond to a claim limitation on appeal, it cannot establish error in the Examiner's findings. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not shown error in the rejection of independent claim 1 over Munshi. Accordingly, we affirm the § 102 rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2, 3, and 5 that fall therewith. For similar reasons, we affirm the § 103 rejections of (1) claim 4 over Munshi and Nishikawa; (2) claims 6-8, 11-15, and 18-20 over Munshi and Lee; (3) claims 9 and 16 over Munshi, Lee, and Ohgami; and (4) claims 10 and 17 over Munshi, Lee, and Nishikawa. Appellants have not particularly pointed out errors in the Examiner’s reasoning to persuasively rebut the Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness, but merely rely on the same arguments presented in connection with claim 1 (App. Br. 6-12; Reply Br. 6- 12). There is no substantive discussion in Appellants’ Briefs concerning any § 103(a) rejections (App. Br. 6-12; Reply Br. 6-12). Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4 and 6-20 for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. The § 103 rejections are therefore sustained. CONCLUSION 9 Appeal 2008-5276 Application 10/463,170 Appellants failed to establish any error in the Examiner’s position that Munshi teaches each and every element in the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm all the Examiner's rejections, including: 1. The rejection of claims 1-3 and 5 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Munshi. 2. The rejection of claim 4 as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Munshi and Nishikawa. 3. The rejection of claims 6-8, 11-15, and 18-20 as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Munshi and Lee. 4. The rejection of claims 9 and 16 as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Munshi, Lee, and Ohgami. 5. The rejection of claims 10 and 17 as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Munshi, Lee, and Nishikawa. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 10 Appeal 2008-5276 Application 10/463,170 gvw MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD 500 WEST MADISON STREET SUITE 3400 CHICAGO, IL 60661 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation