Texas Instruments IncorporatedDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 6, 20202019002141 (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/337,669 07/22/2014 Soyeb Nagori TI-74006 4550 23494 7590 05/06/2020 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED P O BOX 655474, MS 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 EXAMINER DULEY, JANESE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2488 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/06/2020 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 SOYEB NAGORI, SHYAM JAGANNATHAN, DEEPAK KUMAR PODDAR, ARUN SHANKAR KUDANA, PRAMOD SWAMI, and MANOJ KOUL Appeal 2019-002141 Application 14/337,669 Technology Center 2400 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A EVANS, and LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claim 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Texas Instruments Incorporated. Appeal Brief 2, filed August 29, 2018 (Appeal Br.). Appeal 2019-002141 Application 14/337,669 2 BACKGROUND This patent application concerns “a noise filter implemented using a video compression engine.” Specification ¶ 2, July 22, 2014 (Spec.). Claim 1 is the only claim before us on appeal: 1. A noise filter comprising: a motion estimation (ME) engine configured to receive a current frame and a reference frame, the current frame comprising a current block and the reference frame comprising a plurality of reference blocks, the ME engine configured to generate final motion vectors, the current block comprises a plurality of current pixels; a motion compensation unit coupled to the ME engine and configured to generate a motion compensated block based on the final motion vectors and the reference frame, the motion compensated block comprises a plurality of motion compensated pixels; a weighted average filter configured to multiply each current pixel of the plurality of current pixels and a corresponding motion compensated pixel of the plurality of motion compensated pixels with a first weight and a second weight respectively, wherein the product of the current pixels and the first weight is summed with the product of the corresponding motion compensated pixels and the second weight to generate a filtered block; and a blockiness removal unit coupled to the weighted average filter and configured to remove artifacts in the filtered block. Amendment 2, filed August 29, 2018.2 2 The Examiner entered this amendment in an Advisory Action filed September 14, 2018. Appeal 2019-002141 Application 14/337,669 3 REJECTION Claims 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1 103 Bankoski,3 Tourapis,4 Hsu5 DISCUSSION Claim 1 recites the following: a weighted average filter configured to multiply each current pixel of the plurality of current pixels and a corresponding motion compensated pixel of the plurality of motion compensated pixels with a first weight and a second weight respectively, wherein the product of the current pixels and the first weight is summed with the product of the corresponding motion compensated pixels and the second weight to generate a filtered block. Amendment 2. Appellant contends that the Examiner has not shown that Hsu teaches or suggests this limitation because the cited parts of Hsu make “no mention . . . of using motion compensated pixels for the filter.” Appeal Br. 5 (emphasis omitted). We find this argument persuasive. The Examiner found that Hsu discloses a “motion compensated pixel from [a] prior frame” that teaches a “motion compensated pixel.” Final Office Action 7, mailed August 28, 2017 (citing Hsu ¶ 35, Fig. 2). The Examiner also found that Hsu discloses a “predicted pixel value” that is equivalent to a “motion compensated pixel.” See Examiner’s Answer 7–8, October 5, 2018 (citing Hsu ¶¶ 35, 38, 40, Fig. 3). But the cited parts of Hsu do not explicitly disclose either of these elements, and the Examiner has not adequately explained why the cited parts 3 Bankoski et al. (US 9,131,073 B1; September 8, 2015). 4 Tourapis et al. (WO 2013/049412 A2; April 4, 2013). 5 Hsu et al. (US 2012/0257113 A1; October 11, 2012). Appeal 2019-002141 Application 14/337,669 4 of Hsu support these findings. On this record, we thus do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. CONCLUSION The following table summarizes our decision for claim 1, the only claim before us on appeal: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1 103 Bankoski, Tourapis, Hsu 1 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation