Ex Parte LaksonoDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 14, 201411082591 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte INDRA LAKSONO ____________ Appeal 2011-011123 Application 11/082,591 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 31, 32, 34, 37, 38, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 50, 51, 54-71. Claims 1-30, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42, 45, 48, 49, 52, and 53 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2011-011123 Application 11/082,591 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention “relates generally to multimedia processing and more particularly to the storage and access of multimedia data.” (Spec. ¶ 1.) Claim 31 illustrates the claimed subject matter: 31. An integrated circuit (IC) device comprising: a first host interface configured to couple to a first client interface of a mass storage device via a first bus, the first host interface, the first client interface, and the first bus compliant with at least one of an ATA specification, an SATA specification, an ATAPI specification, a USB specification, or an IEEE 1394 specification; a second client interface configured to couple to a second host interface of a multimedia processing device via a second bus, the second client interface, the second host interface, and the second bus compliant with at least one of an ATA specification, an SATA specification, an ATAPI specification, a USB specification, or an IEEE 1394 specification; and a processing module coupled to the first host interface and the second client interface, the processing module to receive a first multimedia data via the second client interface, perform a first processing operation on the first multimedia data to generate a first processed multimedia data, provide the first processed multimedia data to the first host interface for storage at the mass storage device, subsequently access the first processed multimedia data from the mass storage device via the first host interface, perform a second processing operation on the first processed multimedia data to generate a second processed multimedia data, and provide the second processed multimedia data to the multimedia processing device via the second client interface. Appeal 2011-011123 Application 11/082,591 3 REJECTIONS Claims 31, 32, 34, 37, 38, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 50, 51, 54-58, 61, 62, 64, and 65 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Salmonsen (US 2004/0049797 Al; Mar. 11, 2004). Claims 59, 60, 63, and 66-71 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Salmonsen and Russ (US 2006/0095947 A1; May 4, 2006). ISSUE The following issue is dispositive of this appeal: Does Salmonsen teach the “processing module” recited in claim 31? ANALYSIS Claim 31 recites a “processing module” that, among other things, (1) “receive[s] a first multimedia data”; (2) “perform[s] a first processing operation on the first multimedia data to generate a first processed multimedia data”; and (3) “perform[s] a second processing operation on the first processed multimedia data to generate a second processed multimedia data.” The Examiner found Salmonsen taught the recited processing module, as Salmonsen disclosed a processor that “executes various processes, methods, or programs that control operations of the emulator interface controller to transfer information between a network external to the device and the content source or communication bus and to perform a wide variety of other functions.” (Salmonsen ¶ 59 (internal reference numbers omitted).) Appellant contends Salmonsen’s processor neither receives nor processes data as required by claim 31. (Reply Br. 1-2.) Rather, according Appeal 2011-011123 Application 11/082,591 4 to Appellant, the processor simply controls another device that transfers data. (Id.) We agree with Appellant. The cited paragraphs of Salmonsen disclose a processor “that control[s] operations of the emulator interface controller to transfer information” and performs other unspecified functions. (Salmonsen ¶ 59 (internal reference numbers omitted).) The cited paragraphs do not explicitly disclose that the processor either receives or processes data as recited in claim 31. We therefore cannot sustain the rejection of claim 31 and its dependent claims, that is, claims 32, 34, 37, and 38. Because the Examiner relied on this reasoning to reject related limitations in the remaining independent claims (namely, claims 41, 51, and 68), we cannot sustain the rejections of claims 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 50, 51, and 54-71. DECISION We REVERSE the rejections of claim 31, 32, 34, 37, 38, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 50, 51, 54-58, 61, 62, 64, and 65 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We also REVERSE the rejections of claims 59, 60, 63, and 66-71 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation