Ex Parte Shen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2016

13333529 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016)

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.
13/333,529 12/21/2011 Ba-Zhong Shen BP23221 7867
51472 7590 12/21/2016
GARLICK & MARKISON (BRCM)
P.O. BOX 160727
AUSTIN, TX 78716-0727
EXAMINER
JEBARI, MOHAMMED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2016 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):
MMURDOCK@ TEXASPATENTS .COM
ghmptocor@texaspatents.com
bpierotti @ texaspatents .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BA-ZHONG SHEN
Appeal 2015-008062
Application 13/333,529
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—9, 11—19, and 21—25, which
constitute all the claims pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.3
1 Appellant identifies Broadcom Corporation as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 2.)
2 Claims 10 and 20 were canceled.
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Dec. 21, 2011 (“Spec.”), the
Final Office Action mailed Sept. 24, 2014 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief
filed Apr. 13, 2015 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 6,
2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Sept. 8, 2015 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2015-008062
Application 13/333,529
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to two-dimensional motion compensation
filter operation and processing. (Spec. Title.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a processing circuit configured to perform motion
compensation processing including fractional pixel position
interpolation using two-dimensional discrete cosine transform
(2-D DCT) processing that simultaneously operates on a first
plurality of pixels of a first frame with respect to a first dimension
and a second dimension to generate a plurality of coefficient
values for use to generate a second plurality of pixels of a second
frame, wherein:
each of the plurality of coefficient values is based on a
respective at least one fractional-pel value in the first dimension
and a respective at least one fractional-pel value in the second
dimension;
the at least one fractional-pel value in the first dimension
is based on a first fractional-pel distance;
the at least one fractional-pel value in the second
dimension is based on a second fractional-pel distance; and
the second frame is situated prior to or after the first frame
in a sequence of frames.
(App. Br. 24.)
REJECTIONS AND REFERENCES ON APPEAL
Claims 1—5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 17, 19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Chien (US 2012/0163460 Al; June 28, 2012), Li
(US 6,374,280 Bl; April 16, 2002), and Ye (US 2009/0257493 Al; Oct. 15,
2009). (Final Act. 3-9.)
Claims 6, 8, 13—16, 18, and 23—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Chien and Li. (Final Act. 9—13.)
2
Appeal 2015-008062
Application 13/333,529
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken and the
reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s
Appeal Brief. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis as follows.
Claim 1
A. Argument concerning the claimed invention operating on a single
plurality of pixels, not two different sets of DCT coefficients
Appellant argues the Examiner errs because claim 1 recites
simultaneous processing that operates with respect to a first dimension and a
second dimension on a single plurality of pixels whereas Li teaches
simultaneous processing two entirely separate sets of DCT coefficients.
(App. Br. 10—12; Reply Br. 5—15.) To the contrary, the Examiner finds
Chien teaches 2-D DCT, but does not explicitly disclose simultaneous
operation with respect to the two dimensions. (See Final Act. see Chien
1 82 (applying DCT to the residual block)). The Examiner finds Li
processes two sets of DCT coefficients together. We agree with the
Examiner’s findings and conclusion that the claimed limitation is taught by
the combination of Chien and Li.
B. Argument concerning two-dimensional (2D) discrete cosine transform
(DCT)
Next, Appellant argues Chien does not teach 2D motion compensation
filters based on 2-D DCT processing. (App. Br. 12—14; Reply Br. 15—18.)
3
Appeal 2015-008062
Application 13/333,529
Specifically, the Appellant argues that Chien’s DCT is not described as
being performed in two-dimensions simultaneously, and that Chien’s one-
and two-dimensional FIR is not the same as the claimed 2-D DCT applied
simultaneously on first and second pluralities of pixels. (Id.) As noted, the
Examiner finds Chien teaches applying a transform on pixels of a block of
video data to produce a two-dimensional matrix of coefficients. (Ans. 15
citing Chien H 33, 34.) The Examiner also finds Chien teaches DCT as one
possibility for a transform that can be used in video data processing. {Id.
citing Chien | 82.) Putting these teachings together, the Examiner concludes
the argued feature is taught or at least suggested by the references.
We agree with the Examiner that Chien teaches or at least suggests
use of 2-D DCT processing. Specifically, Appellant’s Specification
describes that its 2-D DCT is applied to a first dimension (e.g., vertical) and
a second dimension (e.g., horizontal). (Spec. 20.) Likewise, Chien suggests
DCT transformation of a 2D pixel block with vertical and horizontal
dimensions into a 2D matrix of coefficients. (Chien || 33, 34, 62, 64, 82.)
A person of ordinary skill would have reasonably interpreted Chien as
teaching or at least suggesting the claimed 2-D DCT. Appellant has not
proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us the Examiner’s
findings are in error. As we find the cited references adequate to teach the
claimed feature, we need not reach Appellants’ argument regarding Chien’s
one- and two-dimensional FIR not being the same as the claimed 2-D DCT
applied simultaneously on first and second pluralities of pixels.
C. Argument concerning Li’s processing two sets of DCT coefficients
simultaneously versus simultaneous operation with respect to first and
second dimensions on the very same plurality of pixels
4
Appeal 2015-008062
Application 13/333,529
Appellant argues Li’s processing of two sets of DCT coefficients
simultaneously is not the claimed subject matter, which uses two-
dimensional discrete cosine transform (2-D DCT) processing that
simultaneously operates with respect to a first dimension and a second
dimension on the very same plurality of pixels. (App. Br. 14—19; Reply Br.
18—21.) Again, the Examiner finds that Li processes two sets of DCT
coefficients together. (Final Act. 4; Ans. 15—16 citing Li 8:56—67, Fig. 5.)
The Examiner further finds that Chien discloses two-dimensional discrete
cosine transform (2-D DCT) processing that operates on a single plurality of
pixels of a first frame with respect to a first dimension (e.g., vertical) and a
second dimension (e.g., horizontal). {Id. citing Chien || 33, 34, and 82.)
Combining these teachings, the Examiner concludes the claimed limitation
is at least suggested by the references.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion. Appellant is
arguing the references individually whereas the Examiner relies on the
combination of Chien and Li to teach the disputed limitation. Non­
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing
In re Keller, 642 F.2d413, 425 (CCPA 1981)).
Furthermore, as the Examiner noted with respect to the arguments
discussed in sections A and B, Li processes two sets of DCT coefficients
simultaneously; therefore, the Examiner concludes an ordinarily skilled
artisan would have found it obvious to modify Chien’s 2-D DCT to process
two dimensions of data simultaneously in, in light of Li’s teaching of
operating on two sets of data simultaneously (See Final Act. 4—5; see Li
5
Appeal 2015-008062
Application 13/333,529
8:46—57). Appellant has not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to
persuade us the Examiner’s findings and conclusion are in error. Thus, we
find no error in the Examiner’s findings or conclusion of obviousness.
D. Argument that Ye does not simultaneously operate with respect to first
and second dimensions on the very same plurality of pixels
Appellant also argues Ye does not disclose simultaneously operating
on the very same plurality of pixels. (App. Br. 19-20; Reply Br. 21—23).
However, the Examiner did not rely on Ye, but on Chien and Li, to teach
this feature. (Ans. 16.) Thus, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Claims 6 and 16
Appellant presents similar arguments for claims 6 and 16 to those
discussed with respect to claim 1. (App. Br. 21—23.) Because the argued
limitations of claims 6 and 16 are similar to those argued with respect to
claim 1, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion of
obviousness with respect to claims 6 and 16 (Ans. 16—18) for the reasons
explained.
Reply Brief Arguments
Many of Appellant’s Reply Brief arguments are similar to the Appeal
Brief arguments previously discussed, and we find them unpersuasive for the
stated reasons. (Reply Br. 5—23.)
Appellant also argues for an interpretation of the claimed 2-D DCT
based on descriptions in the Specification describing a diagonal approach
(Reply Br. 7), and stating a person of ordinary of ordinary skill would
understand 2-D DCT operates simultaneously in first and second dimensions
on a 2-D sampled sequence (Reply Br. 8).
6
Appeal 2015-008062
Application 13/333,529
At the outset, we note that these are new arguments to which the
Examiner has not had an opportunity to respond. We do not consider new
arguments made in a Reply Brief absent a showing of good cause, which has
not been proffered in this case. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
Even if we were to consider these arguments, we would not find them
persuasive because the Specification does not define 2-D DCT to require a
diagonal approach. It is improper to import limitations concerning use of a
diagonal approach from the Specification into the claims. See In re Self, 671
F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
Regarding the argument that a person of ordinary skill understands 2-
D DCT operates simultaneously in first and second dimensions on a 2-D
sample sequence, this argument is likewise unpersuasive. Appellant asserts
a person of ordinary skill would interpret 2-D DCT to refer to a transform
represented by the description and equations set forth in the Specification.
(Spec. 18—21.) However, the Examiner has shown that a person of ordinary
skill would have considered it obvious to modify Chien’s 2-D DCT
processing to operate simultaneously with respect to the two dimensions in
light of Li’s teaching of operating on two sets of data simultaneously.
Accordingly, even if we could consider these arguments, we would not find
them persuasive.
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for the remaining dependent
claims and therefore we sustain their rejection for the reasons previously
stated. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed.
Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
7
Appeal 2015-008062
Application 13/333,529
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1—9, 11—19, and 21—25 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8