Ex Parte Rodriguez et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 19, 2012

09736661 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2012)

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.
09/736,661 12/14/2000 Arturo A. Rodriguez 60374.0052USU1/967732 8279
62658 7590 11/20/2012
MERCHANT & GOULD
SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY
P.O. BOX 2903
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903
EXAMINER
AN, SHAWN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/20/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ARTURO A. RODRIGUEZ, PETER CHAN,
AJITH NAIR, RAMESH NALLUR, and SHASHI GOEL
____________

Appeal 2011-009069
Application 09/736,6611
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Scientific-Atlanta, LLC.
Appeal 2011-009069
Application 09/736,661

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 38, 53-55, 71-78, 80-82, and 85-89, which are
all the claims remaining in the application. Claims 1-37, 39-52, 56-70, 79,
83, and 84 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The present invention relates generally to decoding of compressed
digital video under constrained resources. See Spec. 1:11.
Claim 38 is illustrative:
38. A method for adapting to resource constraints of a digital
home communication terminal (DHCT), said method comprising steps
of:
determining by the DHCT whether one of a resource-
constrained mode or a non-resource constrained mode is to be
initiated, the DHCT capable of operating in the non-resource
constrained mode and a plurality of resource constrained modes;
responsive to determining that one of the resource-
constrained modes is to be initiated, operating the DHCT in the
determined resource-constrained mode, including:
retrieving a set of reconstructed decompressed video
frames from a first portion of a memory component, wherein the
memory component stores compressed video frames in a distinct
second portion, wherein the set of video frames corresponds to a video
picture stored in the first portion; and
transferring the set of retrieved reconstructed
decompressed video frames to a display device while downscaling the
video picture in transit to the display device.

Appeal 2011-009069
Application 09/736,661

3
Appellants appeal the following rejection:

Claims 38, 53-55, 71-78, 80-82, and 85-89 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over MacInnis (US 6,570,579 B1,
May 27, 2003), Boyce (US 5,614,952, Mar. 25, 1997), and Kalra (US
5,953,506, Sep. 14, 1999).

ANALYSIS
Our representative claim, claim 38, recites, inter alia, “transferring
the set of retrieved . . . video frames to a display device while downscaling
the video picture in transit to the display device” (emphasis added).
Independent claims 53-55 and 89 recite commensurate limitations. Thus,
the scope of each of the independent claims includes transferring the set of
retrieved video frames while downscaling the video picture in transit.

Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined cited art,
particularly Boyce, teaches and/or suggests “transferring . . . video frames to
a display device while downscaling the video picture in transit to the display
device,” as claimed?

Based upon our review of the record, we find the weight of the
evidence supports Appellants’ position as articulated in the Briefs.
Appellants contend that “‘downscaling’ [in MacInnis] occurs prior to
capture, not post-capture as described in association with claim 38” (App.
Br. 9 (emphasis omitted)). Appellants further contend that “the scaling
operation in Appellant’s claimed embodiment is implemented downstream
Appeal 2011-009069
Application 09/736,661

4
of the media memory, unlike that shown in Figure 2 of MacInnis.” (App.
Br. 11.) Appellants also contend that “Boyce, like MacInnis and Kalra, fails
to describe downscaling after the decompressed picture buffer.” (App. Br.
12.) We agree with Appellants.
Here, the Examiner starts off by conceding that MacInnis does not
disclose transferring video frames while downscaling the video picture in
transit to the display device (Ans. 4). However, the Examiner thereafter
found that “MacInnis et al clearly discloses downscaling occurring after the
decompressed video frames/pictures” (Ans. 11). The Examiner also found
that “Boyce et al clearly teaches/illustrates downscaling (126) occurring
after the decoded/decompressed picture buffer (202)” (id. (emphases
omitted)). We disagree.
As for MacInnis, we find that while MacInnis discloses that a “video
scaler 52 may perform both downscaling and upscaling” (MacInnis, col. 5,
ll. 65-66), MacInnis expressly discloses that “the video scaler preferably
downscales before capturing video frames to memory” (MacInnis, col. 6, ll.
6-7). In other words, MacInnis downscales the video frames prior to storing
the frames in memory.
Contrary to MacInnis, in the claimed invention, a set of reconstructed
decompressed video frames is retrieved from a memory component, and the
set of retrieved from memory decompressed video frames is transferred to a
display device while downscaling the video picture in transit to the display
device (see claim 38). In other words, in the claimed invention the video
frames are downscaled during transmission to the display device, i.e., after
being retrieved from the memory component, not prior to loading into the
memory component.
Appeal 2011-009069
Application 09/736,661

5
Similar to MacInnis, Boyce discloses that “[t]he received
downsampled, decompressed video frames are stored in the frame memory
118” (Boyce, col. 10, ll. 44-45). Stated differently, like MacInnis, Boyce
also downscales the video frames prior to storing them in the frame memory.
Here, we have an invention that requires retrieving a set of video
frames from a memory component and transferring that set of retrieved
video frames to a display device while downscaling the video picture in
transit (see claim 38). Thus, the downscaling is performed after the data is
retrieved from memory and during transit. The Examiner has not
established, and we cannot find, where either cited art, i.e., MacInnis, Boyce,
or Kalra, discloses downscaling video frames after retrieving them from
memory and during transit to the display device, as required by claim 38.
Thus, based on the record before us, and for the reasons set forth with
respect to claim 38, we find that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combined teachings of MacInnis, Boyce, and Kalra discloses each limitation
recited in Appellants’ claims. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 38, 53-55, 71-78, 80-82, and 85-89.
Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments. It
follows that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
the combined teachings of MacInnis, Boyce, and Kalra renders claims 38,
53-55, 71-78, 80-82, and 85-89 unpatentable.

Appeal 2011-009069
Application 09/736,661

6
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection.

REVERSED

babc