Ex Parte Raveendran et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 9, 2016

11527305 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111527,305 0912512006
23696 7590 06/13/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Vijayalakshmi R. Raveendran
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.
050771 4940
EXAMINER
KIM, HEE-YONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VIJA Y ALAKSHMI R. RA VEENDRAN,
PHANIKUMAR BHAMIDIPATI, and TAO TIAN
Appeal2014-006513
Application 11/527,305
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-006513
Application 11/527,305
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-7, 9-23, 25-29, 31-35, 37-39, 41, 42, and 44. Claims 8, 24, 36,
40, and 43 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim,
but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim. Claims 30 and 45
have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The claims are directed to method and apparatus for progressive
channel switching. (Title). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method of processmg a sequence of frames of
multimedia data, the method comprising:
selecting a first portion of a first frame of the sequence;
refreshing the first portion by intra-coding the first
portion;
selecting at least one second portion of a second frame of
the sequence, wherein the at least one second portion entirely
covers and extends beyond an area of the second frame that is
co-located with the first portion;
refreshing the at least one second portion by coding the at
least one second portion based on data associated with the
refreshed first portion;
1 Appellants indicate that QUALCOMM Incorporated is the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 3).
2
Appeal2014-006513
Application 11/527,305
dynamically selecting at least one third portion of a third
frame; and
refreshing the at least one third portion by coding the at
least one third portion based on data associated with the refreshed
first portion or the refreshed second portion, wherein the at least
one second portion and the at least one third portion are
optionally used as reference data for subsequent frames.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Mac Innis
Hallapuro et al.
Jayant et al.
US 2002/0061183 Al
US 2004/0062307 Al
US 2004/0114817 Al
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
May 23, 2002
Apr. 1, 2004
June 17, 2004
Claims 1--4, 6, 7, 9, 11-15, 17-20, 22, 23, 26-29, 31, 33, 34, 37-39,
41, 42, and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Maclnnis.
Claims 5, 21, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Maclnnis in view of Jayant.
Claims 10 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Maclnnis.
Claims 16 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Maclnnis in view of Hallapuro.
3
Appeal2014-006513
Application 11/527,305
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants contend:
Macinnis, teaches the exact opposite of at least the above aspects.
For example, Macinnis teaches the opposite aspects of (1) the
second portion being co-located with the first portion; (2)
refreshing the second portion by coding the second portion based
on data associated with the refreshed first portion; (3) refreshing
the third portion by coding the third portion based on data
associated with the refreshed first portion or the refreshed
second portion; and ( 4) the second portion and the third portion
being optionally used as reference data for subsequent frames.
(App. Br. 9-10).
The Examiner maintains that frames 150, 152, and 154 with their
corresponding I-slices correspond to the claimed first, second, and third
portions of the claimed first, second, and third frames. (Ans. 10-13).
Appellants further contend that "[t]he Examiner's main line of
argument is that the reference Macinnis has been interpreted differently than
understood by the Appellant[ s], and that based on this different
interpretation of Macinnis, Macinnis would teach the claimed aspects."
(Reply Br. 2). Appellants further respond to the Examiner's interpretation
and application of the Macinnis reference. (Reply Br. 2-5).
We agree with Appellants' reasonable interpretation and
analysis of the Macinnis reference. (Reply Br. 2-5). We disagree
with the Examiner's interpretation and analysis of the Macinnis
reference, and we find that Macinnis' s disclosures of the sequence of
I-slices and coding of the prior D rows (or 2D rows) from the
4
Appeal2014-006513
Application 11/527,305
previous frames corresponding to frames 150 and 152 does not
necessarily disclose the claimed:
selecting at least one second portion of a second frame of
the sequence, wherein the at least one second portion entirely
covers and extends beyond an area of the second frame that is
co-located with the first portion;
refreshing the at least one second portion by coding the at
least one second portion based on data associated with the
refreshed first portion.
We disagree with the Examiner's claim interpretation and the
application of the Maclnnis reference. Because the Examiner paints with a
broad brush in making the anticipation rejection, we are left to speculate as
to the precise details of how each argued claim limitation is expressly or
inherently described by the portion of figure 4A and the corresponding
disclosure in para. 56-58 of the Maclnnis reference relied upon by the
Examiner. We note that the Board is a reviewing body and not a place of
initial examination. Moreover, it is our view that the rigorous requirements
of 35 U.S.C. § 102 essentially require a one-for-one mapping of each argued
limitation to the corresponding portion of the reference, which the Examiner
must identify with particularity. Here, in that the Examiner's anticipation
rejection is not well supported by the express disclosure of the Maclnnis
reference and relies on conjecture, such conjecture would require us to resort
to speculation, unfounded assumptions, or hindsight reconstruction. See In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). We will not resort to such
speculation or assumptions to cure the deficiencies in the factual basis in
order to support the Examiner's anticipation rejection. Consequently, we
5
Appeal2014-006513
Application 11/527,305
cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and its corresponding
dependent claims 2--4, 6, 7, 9, and 11-15.
With respect to independent claims 17, 33, 38, and 42, the Examiner
relies upon the rejection set forth with respect to independent claim 1. (Final
Act. 3--4). Appellants present the same argument for all claims rejected
under the anticipation rejection. (App. Br. 9). Because independent claims
17, 33, 38, and 42 contain similar limitations, we cannot sustain the
Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claims 17, 33, 38, and 42
and their respective dependent claims 18-20, 22, 23, 26-29, 31, 34, 37, 39,
41, and 44.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
With respect to the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 5, 16,
21, 32, and 35, Appellants rely upon the arguments advanced with respect to
their corresponding independent claim and maintain that the additional prior
art references do not remedy the deficiencies in the Maclnnis reference. 2
(App. Br. 15). The Examiner merely maintains that Appellants' general
argument is "groundless." (Ans. 14). Because the Examiner has not
identified how either the Maclnnis reference alone or in combination of
additional prior art references remedies the deficiency noted above, we
cannot sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of dependent claims 5,
16, 21, 32, and 35 (also claims 10 and 25).
2 We note that Appellants do not include a heading and arguments to
dependent claims 10 and 25 which are rejected upon obviousness over the
Maclnnis reference alone. Because neither the Examiner nor Appellants
have provided substantive arguments for these claims, we group these claims
as standing or falling with their corresponding parent claims.
6
Appeal2014-006513
Application 11/527,305
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1--4, 6, 7, 9, 11-15, 17-20, 22,
23, 26-29, 31, 33, 34, 37-39, 41, 42, and 44 based upon anticipation, and the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5, 10, 16, 21, 25, 32, and 35 based upon
obviousness.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's anticipation
rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 7, 9, 11-15, 17-20, 22, 23, 26-29, 31, 33, 34, 37-
39, 41, 42, and 44, and we reverse the Examiner's anticipation obviousness
rejection of claims 5, 10, 16, 21, 25, 32, and 35.
REVERSED
7