Ex Parte Srinivasan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201813864131 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/864, 131 04/16/2013 23494 7590 06/04/2018 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED PO BOX 655474, MIS 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ranga Ramanujam Srinivasan 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-72253 8152 EXAMINER KWON, YONG JOON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2489 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/04/2018 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 RANGA RAMANUJAM SRINIVASAN, MIHIR NARENDRA MODY, and CHAIT ANY A SATISH GHONE Appeal2017-008123 Application 13/864,131 Technology Center 2400 Before THU A. DANG, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 21-58. App. Br. 3. 2 Claims 1-20 were canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Texas Instruments Incorporated. App. Br. 3. 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Rejection ("Final Act.") mailed May 19, 2016, the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed December 19, 2016, the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed March 9, 2017, and the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed May 9, 2017. Appeal2017-008123 Application 13/864, 131 THE INVENTION Appellants' invention computes a color-component checksum for video coding. Spec. ,r 2. According to the Specification, the HEVC 3 Draft 6 definition calls for a single checksum computed for a picture across all three color components (Y, Cb, Cr). Id. ,r 24. The invention removes the dependency between color components by computing a separate checksum for each color component. Id. ,r 25. This allows for parallel computation of the component checksums. Id. Claim 21 is reproduced below with our emphasis: 21. A method of video encoding, comprising: encoding a picture; forming a reconstructed picture from the encoded picture; computing a separate checksum for each color component of the reconstructed picture; determining a hash for each color component of the reconstructed picture using the calculated checksum for each of the color components the of the reconstructed picture; and encoding the hash for each color component into an encoded video bit stream. THE EVIDENCE The Examiner relies on the following as evidence: Hatabu et al. Wenger et al. Ikeda Oterhals et al. US 2005/0111541 Al US 2007/0157070 Al US 2010/0067880 Al US 2011/0074765 Al May 26, 2005 July 5, 2007 Mar. 18, 2010 Mar. 31, 2011 3 High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) is a video-coding standard. Spec. ,r 4. 2 Appeal2017-008123 Application 13/864, 131 THE REJECTIONS Claims 25-37 and 43-58 stand rejected under pre-AIA 4 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as indefinite. Final Act. 4--5. Claims 21-31 5 and 33-56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wenger, Oterhals, and Hatabu. Final Act. 6-12. Claims 32, 57, 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wenger, Oterhals, Hatabu, and Ikeda. Final Act. 12-13. THE INDEFINITENESS REJECTION The Examiner finds that the "coding control component" and "decoding control component" found in claims 25-37 and 43-58 invoke pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 2-3. 6 The Examiner, however, concludes that the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed functions, and thus, these claims are indefinite. Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 2-3. I In the first step of our analysis, we address whether the components at issue are in means-plus-function form under§ 112, sixth paragraph. See Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Inc., 769 F.3d 1094, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2014). A limitation that lacks the term "means"-as is the case here-will trigger 4 The effective filing date of this application is before the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 3, 125 Stat. 284, 285-93 (2011), and it is governed by the previous version of§ 112. 5 The Examiner mislabels the rejection of claim 25 as claim 24. Final Act. 9-11. The Examiner, however, quotes the limitations from claim 25. Id. Accordingly, we treat this as a harmless typographical error. Id. 6 The Examiner explains in the Answer that only two components are at issue. Ans. 2. 3 Appeal2017-008123 Application 13/864, 131 the rebuttable presumption that§ 112, sixth paragraph does not apply. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The presumption is overcome if (1) "the claim term fails to 'recite[] sufficiently definite structure"' or (2) "recites 'function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function."' Id. "The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure." Id. at 1349. The Examiner finds that the "coding control component" and "decoding control component" recited in claims 25-37 and 43-58 invoke § 112, sixth paragraph. Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 2. Appellants argue that the claims should not be interpreted as invoking§ 112, sixth paragraph, because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the various components denote structure. App. Br. 21-28. We begin by noting that the claim limitations do not inform the components' structural character. Notably, the prefixes to the components are purely functional in nature. Apart from describing their function----e.g., coding control and decoding control-the claims provide no structural context for determining the components' attributes. Rather, in the claimed system, each component is described only by the function it performs. Moreover, the Specification fails to impart any structural significance to the term "component." See, e.g., Spec. ,r 31-35; Figs. 3A-B, 4A-B, 12 (showing the system as a block diagram). Appellants direct our attention to the various block diagrams that show how the components are interrelated. App. Br. 23, 25-26. Appellants also cite extrinsic evidence to support their contention. Id. at 22-27. Although the cited passages discuss processors 4 Appeal2017-008123 Application 13/864, 131 and logic, they do not address whether the term "component" refers to a specific structure. See id. None of the passages use the term "component" to refer to a structure. Id. Second, the claims do not recite sufficient structure for performing the components' functions. Apart from the nonce word "component," the remainder of the claim does not recite a structure, hardware, or anything else that performs the function that follows "component configured to." Rather, the components are the only elements that perform the functions at issue. Accordingly, the Examiner properly treated the "coding control component" and "decoding control component" as mean-plus-function terms. Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 2-3. II The Examiner concludes that the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure for the "coding control component" and "decoding control component." Final Act. 4; Ans. 2. "If there is no structure in the specification corresponding to the means-plus-function limitation in the claims, the claim" is indefinite. Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2007). "[T]he corresponding structure for a§ 112 [sixth paragraph] claim for a computer-implemented function is the algorithm disclosed in the specification." Aristocrat Techs. Aust!. Pty Ltd. v. Int'! Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Harris Corp. v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). As recited in claim 25, the computer-implemented function of the "coding control component" is the following: 5 Appeal2017-008123 Application 13/864, 131 determine a separate checksum for each color component of the reconstructed picture and determine a hash for each color component of the reconstructed picture using the calculated checksum for each of the color components the of the reconstructed picture. Claim 31 recites a similar limitation. The recited "decoding control component," in claims 43 and 50, has a similar function for decoding the encoded video by extracting a separate checksum for each color component and comparing the separate checksums. The Examiner finds that the Specification lacks the corresponding algorithmic structure for performing the recited checksum function of the "coding control component" and "decoding control component." Ans. 2-3. Appellants explain that the Da Vinci Digital media processor from Texas Instruments is the corresponding structure. App. Br. 29-30 ( citing Spec. ,r,r 74, 77-79); Reply Br. 3. Although the Specification discloses that this media processor has some specialized capability, the processor must be programmed to perform the embodiment of the invention. Spec. ,r 7 4. That is, the processor is designed for performing operations used in the recited functions, but Appellants have not identified the algorithm-i.e., the sequence of those operations-that this processor is configured to perform. See, e.g., id. ,r,r 74, 77-79. In particular, the Specification explains that Figure 12 shows an example system that "may be configured to perform" the embodiment that computes a checksum for encoding and decoding. Id. ,r 74. "This example system-on-a-chip (SoC) is representative of one of a family of Da Vinci™ Digital Media Processors, available from Texas Instruments, Inc." Id. Notably, "[t]he Soc 1200 is a programmable plaiform designed to meet the 6 Appeal2017-008123 Application 13/864, 131 processing needs of applications" including video encoding or decoding, among other functions. Id. ,r 75 ( emphasis added). So, the Da Vinci Digital Media Processor is a processor programmed to carry out an algorithm corresponding to the recited computer-implemented functions. Id. But Appellants have not identified any algorithm, only this processor. App. Br. 28-30; Reply Br. 3. Because the processor alone cannot be the corresponding structure for the "coding control component" and "decoding control component," Appellants have not rebutted the Examiner's conclusion that the Specification lacks the corresponding structure. Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 2-3. On the weight of this evidence, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 25-37 and 43-58 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER WENGER, OTERHALS, AND HATABU The Examiner's Findings The Examiner finds that Wenger teaches every recited element of representative 7 claim 21 except (1) computing a separate checksum for each color component and (2) forming a reconstructed picture from the encoded picture. Final Act. 6-8. In concluding that the subject matter of claim 21 would have been obvious, the Examiner finds that Oterhals and Hatabu teach these limitations. Id. at 7-8. Of relevance to the limitation at issue, 7 Appellants explain that claims 21-31 and 33-56 contain the limitation at issue and argue these claims as a group. App. Br. 32-36. Accordingly, we select independent claim 21 as representative of claims 21-31 and 33-56. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). 7 Appeal2017-008123 Application 13/864, 131 the Examiner finds that Wenger teaches computing a checksum but not a separate checksum for each color component. Id. at 7. The Examiner, however, finds that Oterhals teaches computing a separate checksum for each color plane, which can be a cyclic-redundancy-check (CRC) value. Id. ( citing Oterhals ,r 63). Appellants ' Contentions Appellants argue that Wenger does not describe computing a checksum, and Oterhals cannot be properly combined to cure this deficiency. App. Br. 33-34. According to Appellants, Oterhals distinguishes a checksum from a CRC. Id. at 34 (citing Oterhals ,r,r 57, 63). In Appellants' view, Oterhals generates a CRC, not the checksum, for each color component. App. Br. 34; Reply Br. 4--5. Appellants argue that Wenger calculates a single checksum using a 16-bit CRC. App. Br. 33. Accordingly, Appellants contend that neither Wenger nor Oterhals describe a separate checksum for each color component. Id. at 35-36. Analysis Claim 21 recites, in relevant part, "computing a separate checksum for each color component of the reconstructed picture" ( emphasis added). The issue here is whether the recited checksum encompasses Oterhals' s CRC under the broadest reasonable interpretation. "During examination, claims ... are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and ... claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quotation omitted). Here, the Specification explains that the HEVC Draft 6 definition calls for a single checksum 8 Appeal2017-008123 Application 13/864, 131 computed for a picture across all three color components (Y, Cb, Cr). Spec. ,r 24. HEVC specifies a message that conveys a picture's checksum and the algorithm used to compute that checksum. Id. ,r 23. Table 1, reproduced below, indicates the syntax for this message. Id . .. Decoded.,picture" hash(_ pay!oadSlzeJL. ....................................................... .J hash type I ........ if{__hash type ... =. = ... oJ ................................................................................................... 1 for( i = O; i < 16; i + +) I picture md5[ i] else if( hash type = = 1 }I plcture= ....c_r_c _______________ ___, .J ................................................................................................................................................................. ..J As shown in Table 1 above, "hash_type" indicates the checksum algorithm. Id. This version of HEVC allows two different checksum algorithms: ( 1) "picture_md5" indicates the MD5 message-digest algorithm is used, and (2) "picture_crc" indicates the CRC algorithm is used. Id. The invention computes a separate checksum for each color component. Id. ,r 25. One embodiment uses a message conveying three separate checksums. Id. ,r 62. Appellants derive the embodiment's message syntax from HEVC's syntax. Id. Notably, Table 2 shows "picture_crc[ comp]." Id. So, "picture_crc" indicates that some type of CRC algorithm is used to compute the checksum for the color component indicated by "comp." See id. ,r 63. Considering the Specification's use of the terms "CRC" and "checksum" (id. ,r,r 23, 62, 63), we agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of "checksum," consistent with the Specification, includes a CRC (Final Act. 7; Ans. 5). It is undisputed that Oterhals teaches a CRC. See Final Act. 7; App. Br. 34. In particular, Oterhals's signature represents the data block's content. Oterhals ,r 57. Oterhals's signature can be a CRC or MD5, among 9 Appeal2017-008123 Application 13/864, 131 other types. Id. For at least this reason, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Oterhals teaches the recited checksum. Final Act. 7. Appellants argue that Oterhals distinguishes between CRC and a checksum. App. Br. 34 (citing Oterhals ,r,r 57, 63); Reply Br. 4--5. To be sure, Oterhals does state that the signature could be a "checksum, a CRC, or a hash value." Oterhals ,r 57. But notably, Oterhals states that "a separate signature(~ CRC) could be generated for each colour plane." Id. ,r 63 (emphasis added). We emphasize "e.g." here because it indicates that the signature need not be a CRC. See id. Rather, Oterhals's signature could be what Oterhals refers to as a "checksum" in paragraph 57. Id. ,r 57. Thus, even if we were to accept Appellants' argument that Oterhals' s CRC in paragraph 63 is different from the checksum in paragraph 57 (App. Br. 34), Oterhals, nevertheless, teaches using the checksum in paragraph 57 as the signature. Oterhals ,r,r 57, 63. Moreover, Appellants' argument that Wenger and Oterhals cannot be properly combined (App. Br. 33-34) is unpersuasive. Specifically, Wenger teaches calculating a checksum over the picture's color-space data. Wenger ,r 78, cited in Final Act. 7. To compute the checksum, Wenger teaches using a 16-bit CRC. Wenger ,r 78. Although Wenger does not teach computing the recited checksum, Oterhals teaches computing a separate signature for each color plane. Oterhals ,r 57. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wegner with Oterhals to improve the results in the way described by Oterhals in paragraph 65. Final Act. 7. In paragraph 65, Oterhals explains that the method allows the signature to be weighted to the data that will have more effect on the output. Oterhals ,r 65. On this record, the Examiner has 10 Appeal2017-008123 Application 13/864, 131 supported the obviousness conclusion with articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning, and we are unconvinced that these references cannot be combined in the manner proposed. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of representative claim 21, and claims 22-31 and 33-56, which are not argued separately (see App. Br. 32-36). THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER WENGER, OTERHALS, HATABU,ANDIKEDA Claims 32, 57, and 58 depend from claims 31, 55, and 56, which are discussed above. In arguing against the rejection of claims 32, 57, and 58, Appellants refer to the arguments presented for claims 31, 55, and 56. App. Br. 36-37. Therefore, for the reasons discussed in connection with claims 31, 55, and 56, we also sustain the rejections of claims 32, 57, and 58. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 21-5 8. 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 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation