Ex Parte Wegener et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 11, 201814162075 (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 14/162,075 45634 7590 Compass IP Law PC Lawrence M. Cho FILING DATE 01/23/2014 05/15/2018 4804 NW Bethany Blvd Ste I-2 #237 Portland, OR 97229 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ALBERT W. WEGENER 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. 10006.053310 (A04619) 9053 EXAMINER SLATER, ALISONT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2487 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/15/2018 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): eofficeaction@appcoll.com admin@compassiplaw.com lawrence@compassiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALBERT W. WEGENER and ALLAN M. EVANS (Applicant: AL TERA CORPORATION) Appeal2017-004253 Application 14/162,07 5 Technology Center 2400 Before HUNG H. BUI, AMBER L. HAGY, and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-6, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 References herein to "Appellant" are to applicant Altera Corporation, also identified in the Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.) Appeal2017-004253 Application 14/162,07 5 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction According to Appellant, "[t]he technology described [in the present application] encodes pixel data of an image or video frame to support multiple access patterns, including access in raster and macroblock formats, for image data that are captured, processed, stored, or displayed in a computing system." (Spec. i12.) Exemplary Claim Claims 1, 3, and 5 are independent. Claims 1 and 3, reproduced below with the disputed limitations italicized, are exemplary of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus comprising: a processor that receives pixels from an image sensor in a raster format such that the pixels are read raster-by-raster by the processor; and an access encoder that performs steps comprising: encoding a sequence of sets of pixels from each raster in a sequence of rasters of the raster format to form a plurality of encoded macroblocks, wherein a number of pixels in the set corresponds to a first macroblock dimension and a number of rasters in the sequence of rasters corresponds to a second macroblock dimension; calculating a size in bytes of each encoded macro block; generating a directory of pointers to macroblock addresses based on the size of each encoded macroblock; and storing the encoded macroblocks in memory. 2 Appeal2017-004253 Application 14/162,07 5 3. An apparatus comprising: a processor that receives an unencoded video frame in a macroblock format from an image sensor; and an access encoder that performs steps comprising: encoding each macroblock of the unencoded video frame to form a plurality of encoded macroblocks corresponding to the video frame; calculating a size in bytes of each encoded macroblock in the plurality of encoded macroblocks; generating a directory of pointers to macroblock addresses for the plurality of encoded macroblocks corresponding to the video frame based on the size of each encoded macroblock; and storing the plurality of encoded macroblocks in memory. References The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Nakaishi Susnow et al. ("Susnow") Mills US 2008/0043842 Al US 2010/0020880 Al US 2014/0028876 Al Rejections2 Feb.21,2008 Jan.28,2010 Jan.30,2014 Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mills, Susnow, and Nakaishi. (Final Act. 3-6.) Claims 3---6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Susnow and Nakaishi. (Final Act. 6-11.) 2 All rejections are under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. in effect prior to the effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011. 3 Appeal2017-004253 Application 14/162,07 5 ISSUES (1) Whether the Examiner erred in finding Susnow discloses encoding a sequence of sets of pixels from each raster in a sequence of rasters of the raster format to form a plurality of encoded macroblocks, wherein a number of pixels in the set corresponds to a first macroblock dimension and a number of rasters in the sequence of rasters corresponds to a second macroblock dimension, as recited in independent claim 1? (2) Whether the Examiner erred in finding Takaishi discloses "generating a directory of pointers to macro block addresses based on the size of each encoded macro block," as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 3 and 5? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's assertions and we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer and in the Final Action from which this appeal is taken. We highlight the following for emphasis. 3 A. "encoding a sequence of sets of pixels ... wherein a number of pixels in the set corresponds to a first macro block dimension and a number of rasters in the sequence of rasters corresponds to a second macroblock dimension" (claim 1) The Examiner relies on Susnow as teaching encoding a macroblock wherein a number of pixels corresponds to a first dimension of the macro block and a number of rasters corresponds to a second dimension of 3 Only those arguments made by Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments Appellant did not make have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 4 Appeal2017-004253 Application 14/162,07 5 the macro block, as recited in independent claim 1. (Final Act. 4--5 (citing Susnow i-fi-1271, 110).) Appellant argues the Examiner's findings are in error because the portions of Susnow cited by the Examiner do not "teach how the pixels are encoded, much less the specific manner for encoding pixels into macro blocks recited in the claim limitation." (App. Br. 8 (emphasis omitted).) In particular, Appellant asserts the portions of Susnow cited by the Examiner disclose "searching a memory buffer" and "performing an integer search," which "even if combined, do not disclose, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of application filing, the claimed way to form encoded macroblocks from the pixels in a sequence of rasters." (Reply Br. 3 (emphasis omitted).) Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of error because they ignore pertinent teachings of Susnow. As the Examiner finds, and we agree, Susnow teaches the claimed "encoding a sequence of sets of pixels from each raster in a sequence of rasters of the raster format to form a plurality of encoded macroblocks" because, in connection with disclosing searches of macro blocks, Susnow also discloses dimensions of the macro blocks corresponding to pixels for one dimension and rasters for another dimension. (Ans. 3.) In particular, Susnow discloses the macro block pixel data (i.e., a plurality of encoded macroblocks) may start loading the upper-left pixel first (i.e., a sequence of rasters). (Susnow i1271.) Susnow further discloses subsequent pixels "arrive in raster-scan order"; that is, the pixels at row 0 are transferred left to right, then pixels at row 1 are transferred from left to right, and so forth. (Id.) In the example provided in Susnow, the macroblock is 16x16 pixels for each of 16 raster rows. (Id.) Thus, as the Examiner finds, and we agree, Susnow teaches the limitation "wherein a number of pixels" 5 Appeal2017-004253 Application 14/162,07 5 (i.e., 256 pixels) "in the set corresponds to a first macroblock dimension" (i.e., sixteen pixels wide macro block) "and a number of rasters in the sequence of rasters corresponds to a second macroblock dimension" (i.e., sixteen row macroblock). (Ans. 3.) Notably, this example from Susnow corresponds to the dimensions disclosed in an example in Appellant's Specification, which describes a 16x16 macroblock comprising 16 pixels from each of 16 rasters. (Spec. i-f 48.) B. "generating a directory of pointers to macroblock addresses" (claims 1, 3, and 5) The Examiner relies on Nakaishi as disclosing "generating a directory of pointers to macro block addresses based on the size of each encoded macroblock," as recited in independent claim 1. (Final Act. 5---6 (citing Nakaishi i-fi-163, 66).) The Examiner similarly relies on Nakaishi as disclosing slightly narrower versions of this limitation as recited in independent claims 3 and 5: "generating a directory of pointers to macroblock addresses for the plurality of encoded macro blocks corresponding to the video frame based on the size of each encoded macroblock" (claim 3); "generating a directory of pointers to macroblock addresses for the sequence of encoded macroblocks based on the size of each encoded macroblock" (claim 5). (Id. at 6-10.) Appellant argues the Examiner's findings as to all three limitations are in error because "[ n Jo directory of pointers to macro block addresses is disclosed" in Nakaishi. (App. Br. 9, 11, 12; Reply Br. 5.) We disagree. As the Examiner finds, and we agree, Nakaishi teaches the disputed limitations by disclosing: When an address request specifying an adjacent macroblock is received from the predictor calculator 2, the address calculator 6 Appeal2017-004253 Application 14/162,07 5 3 determines the memory address (i.e., macro block addresses) of its corresponding representative vector in the reference picture memory 1 (i.e., a directory of pointers), based on the block size of the specified adjacent macroblock (i.e., based on the size of each encoded macroblock). The address calculator 3 calculates a memory address from the block size and passes it back to the predictor calculator 2. . . . [T]he address calculator 3 may be designed to use a translation table that associates memory address values of representative vector storage locations with different block sizes. (Ans. 3--4 (citing Nakaishi i10063).) Appellant does not substantively address the Examiner's findings, but merely states the portion ofNakaishi cited by the Examiner does not teach the claimed limitation. (App. Br. 9, 11, 12; Reply Br. 5.) Such conclusory attorney assertions have little or no value in identifying the Examiner's alleged error, and, consequently, have little persuasive value. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.3 7 ( c )(iv) ("A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim."); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's finding the combination of Mills, Susnow, and Nakaishi teaches or suggests the limitations of independent claim 1 and we, therefore sustain that rejection of that claim, along with the rejection of dependent claim 2 not argued separately. We are also not persuaded of error in the Examiner's finding the combination of Susnow and Nakaishi teaches or suggests the limitations of independent claims 3 and 5 and we, therefore, sustain the rejections of those claims, along with the rejection of dependent claims 4 and 6 not argued separately. 7 Appeal2017-004253 Application 14/162,07 5 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6 are affirmed. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation