Ex Parte Wang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 15, 201411026343 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte WEN-SHAN WANG and HYUNG-SUK KIM ____________ Appeal 2012-005107 Application 11/026,343 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–5 and 18–25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify Intel Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2012-005107 Application 11/026,343 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ claimed invention “relates generally to data processing, and . . . more particularly, to video coding operations.” Spec. ¶ 1. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method executable by one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving at least a part of an input matrix of pixels of a video stream in a raster scan order; performing a first matrix multiplication operation of the at least the part of the input matrix of pixels by a transpose of a constant matrix to generate an intermediate result, wherein the first matrix multiplication operation is performed on the at least the part of the input matrix of pixels in the raster scan order; and performing a second matrix multiplication operation of the intermediate result by the constant matrix. Claims 1–5 and 18–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hong (US 5,764,553; issued June 9, 1998) and Shibata (US 5,325,215; issued June 28, 1994). Ans. 4–8; App. Br. 8. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hong, Shibata, and in further view of “well knowledge/Official Notice.” Ans. 89; App. Br. 8. ANALYSIS Appellants argue, inter alia, the Examiner erred in finding Hong and Shibata teach or suggest the limitations “performing a first matrix multiplication operation of the at least the part of the input matrix of pixels Appeal 2012-005107 Application 11/026,343 3 by a transpose of a constant matrix to generate an intermediate result” and “performing a second matrix multiplication operation of the intermediate result by the constant matrix,” as recited in claim 1, or similar limitations in independent claim 18. App. Br. 10–13. We agree. Citing to column 1, lines 30 to 50 of Shibata, the Examiner finds “Shibata shows in equation 1 a formula to [sic] that first does a first matrix multiplication operation with a transpose of a constant matrix and then another with only the constant matrix,” Ans. 5, and “Shibata suggests a first matrix multiplication of operation of the at least the part of the input matrix of pixels by a transpose of a constant matrix with equation 1,” Ans. 9–10. Equation 1 of Shibata reads as follows: Equation (1): DCT [X] = [C]×[]×[TC] Inverse DCT [] = T[C]×[X]×[C] where “[X]” represents the result of a Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT) operation on a pixel matrix apparently represented by “[]”; “[C]” represents a matrix of transform coefficients; and “T[C]” and [TC] appear interchangeably to represent the transposed matrix of [C]. See Shibata, col. 1, ll. 17–60.2 We agree with Appellants that neither of the formulas in Equation 1 teaches or suggests the “performing a first matrix multiplication” step of claim 1. In the first formula, constant matrix [C] is first multiplied by pixel matrix [], and then the result of that multiplication is multiplied by transposed constant matrix [TC]. In the second formula, transposed constant 2 As explained by Appellants’, the specific symbols “[],” “T[C],” and “[TC]” are not defined in Shibata’s specification, where the pixel matrix is instead designated by “[x]” and the transpose of [C] is designated by “t[c].” See App. Br. 11; Shibata, col. 1, ll. 24–28. Appeal 2012-005107 Application 11/026,343 4 matrix T[C] is multiplied by DCT result matrix [X], and then the result is multiplied by constant matrix [C]. Appellants argue, and we agree, “the transpose matrix precedes the ‘[X]’ term in the multiplication [in the second formula] and thus leads to an improper result.” App. Br. 12. As explained by Appellants, “changing the order of matrix multiplicands changes the result.” App. Br. 12. Therefore, in neither formula of Shibata’s equation 1 is a pixel matrix (i.e., in the parlance of claim 1, “the at least the part of the input matrix of pixels”) multiplied first by a transposed constant matrix, nor is the intermediate result of such a first matrix multiplication operation multiplied by a constant matrix. In other words, using the symbols from Shibata’s Equation 1, the cited portion of Shibata does not teach or suggest either an intermediate result of form “[]×[TC],” as would follow from the “first matrix multiplication operation[s]” respectively recited in independent claims 1 and 18, or a result of form “[]×[TC]×[C],” as would follow from the “second matrix multiplication operation[s]” recited in those claims. Accordingly, we are constrained by the record before us to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 18. We also reverse the rejection of claims 2–5 and 19–25, which depend variously from claims 1 and 18. Because the identified errors are dispositive of the appeal, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ separate arguments with respect to claims 19 and 22. Appeal 2012-005107 Application 11/026,343 5 DECISION3 The rejection of claims 1–5 and 18–25 under U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED llw 3 Should there be further prosecution of this application (including any review for allowance), the Examiner may wish to review at least claims 1–5 and 22–24 for compliance under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of the recently issued preliminary examination instructions on patent eligible subject matter. See Memorandum from Andrew H. Hirshfeld, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, to the Patent Examining Corps, Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.(June 25, 2014). Available at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/memoranda.jsp (last visited on October 2, 2014). Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation