Ex Parte WEGENER et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 11, 2018

14162075 (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2018)

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