Ex Parte Morad et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 13, 201410776541 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2014) 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. 10/776,541 02/10/2004 Amir Morad 106861-0594 3126 121312 7590 05/14/2014 Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation 3000 K Street N.W, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20007-5109 EXAMINER VO, TUNG T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/14/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte AMIR MORAD, LEONID YAVITS, GADI OXMAN, EVGENY SPEKTOR, MICHAEL KHRAPKOVSKY, and GREGORY CHERNOV ____________________ Appeal 2012-000325 Application 10/776,541 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-000325 Application 10/776,541 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 10-36 (App. Br. 2). Claims 1-9 have been cancelled (Amendment dated April 16, 2009). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. A. INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and apparatus for performing real time video/audio/data encoding on a single chip including a video and audio encoder that generates encoded data from uncompressed data and a mux processor that generates an output stream of encoded data from the encoded data (Abstract). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 10 is exemplary: 10. A single-chip audio/video encoder device comprising, on a single integrated circuit: multiplexer circuitry that operates in a first mode and a second mode, which when operating in the first mode produces a first multiplexed stream from first compressed video, first compressed audio, second compressed video, and second compressed audio; and which when operating in the second mode concurrently produces the first multiplexed stream from the first compressed video and the first compressed audio, and produces a second multiplexed stream from the second compressed video and the second compressed audio; a first encoder that receives first uncompressed video data and first uncompressed audio data, and that produces the first compressed video and the first compressed audio; a second encoder that receives second uncompressed video data and second uncompressed audio data, and that Appeal 2012-000325 Application 10/776,541 3 produces the second compressed video and the second compressed audio; control circuitry that synchronizes the multiplexing circuitry, the first encoder, and the second encoder; wherein the device transmits the first multiplexed stream to circuitry external to the device via a first output of the device; and wherein the device transmits the second multiplexed stream to circuitry external to the device via a second output of the device. C. REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Kopet US 5,448,310 Sept. 5, 1995 Adolph US 5,825,430 Oct. 20, 1998 Ishihara US 6,516,031 B1 Feb. 4, 2003 Hinchley US 6,490,250 B1 Dec. 3, 2002 Bruck US 6,519,289 B1 Feb. 11, 2003 Krishnamurthy US 6,665,872 B1 Dec. 16, 2003 Boice US 6,823,013 B1 Nov. 23, 2004 Claims 10-20 and 24-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Adolph in view of Hinchley. Claims 21, 22, 34, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Adolph in view of Hinchley and Ishihara. Claims 23 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Adolph in view of Hinchley, Ishihara, and Kopet. Appeal 2012-000325 Application 10/776,541 4 Claims 10-12, 15, 16, 20, 24, 25, 28, 29, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krishnamurthy in view of Adolph. Claims 13 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krishnamurthy in view of Adolph and Bruck. Claims 14, 17-19, 27, and 30-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krishnamurthy in view of Adolph and Hinchley. Claims 21, 22, 34, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krishnamurthy in view of Adolph and Boice. Claims 21, 22, 34, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krishnamurthy in view of Adolph, Boice, and Kopet. II. ISSUES The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in finding that the combination of Adolph and Hinchley or Krishnamurthy teaches or would have suggested an encoder device comprising “multiplexer circuitry that operates in a first mode and a second mode,” “wherein the device transmits the first multiplexed stream to circuitry external to the device via a first output of the device,” and “wherein the device transmits the second multiplexed stream to circuitry external to the device via a second output of the device” (claim 10, emphases added). Appeal 2012-000325 Application 10/776,541 5 III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Adolph 1. Adolph discloses a method and apparatus for the transmission of digital signals where video and audio signals V1, A1, V2, and A2 are each fed to a source coder VEl, AE1 and VE2, AE2, (together with supplementary data) that produces a common program data stream through program multiplexers, MUX1 and MUX2 (Fig. 3; col. 4, ll. 30-38). The program data streams are combined in a transport multiplexer MMUX to form a transport data stream in accordance with the MPEG2 system specification (col. 4, ll. 38-42). 2. A Splitter channel (SP) splits the transport data stream into individual partial data streams distributed between three sub-channels (Fig. 3; col. 4, ll. 40-52) 3. A succeeding encoder unit MOD processes the signals using convolutional coding for the purpose of internal error protection and digital modulation, generating baseband signals, which are converted by a succeeding modulator BBRF into a suitable transmission format (Fig. 3; col. 4, l. 67- col. 5, l. 5). Hinchley 4. Hinchley discloses multimedia engine 250 adjusts the data rate output of the encoder 208 by adjusting the rate of the data which is input to the encoder 208 (col. 4, ll. 49-53). Appeal 2012-000325 Application 10/776,541 6 Krishnamurthy 5. Krishnamurthy discloses a multiplexer and traffic controller for concurrent transmission of multiple compressed video bitstream having a single-chip audio/video encoder circuitry (Fig. 3; Abstract; col. 1, ll. 6-10). 6. The encoder circuitry includes an input interface module 318 comprising a Complex Programmable Logic Device (CPLD) or Field- Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) based deframing firmware, which serve to split the video and audio data and to reproduce the video synchronization signals for the MPEG2 video encoder chip (col. 19, ll. 17-22). IV. ANALYSIS Claims 10-20 and 24-33 Appellants contend “[t]he Examiner fails credibly to explain how the same ‘MOD’ and ‘BBRF’ elements that process a single data stream teach transmission of the two streams, namely Appellants’ claimed ‘first multiplexed stream’ and ‘second multiplexed stream’, via the claimed ‘first output’ and ‘second output’” (App. Br. 14). Appellants argue “[n]othing in Adolph discusses or describes the two modes of operation that the Examiner alleges are present” (App. Br. 15). Appellants finally contend “Hinchley merely teaches that the ‘multimedia engine 250’ adjusts a ‘data rate’ of only an encoder, but says nothing about ‘synchronization’” (App. Br. 19) (citation omitted). However, the Examiner finds that Adolph teaches a “multiplexer circuitry” (Ans. 5), “operating in the first mode [which] . . . produces a first multiplexed steam” and “operating in the second mode concurrently produces the first multiplexed stream” and “a second multiplexed stream” Appeal 2012-000325 Application 10/776,541 7 (Ans. 38). The Examiner finds further that Hinchley “teaches the multimedia engine as control circuitry that synchronizes the multiplexing circuitry, the first encoder, and the second encoder” (Ans. 47). We agree with the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness. We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As a matter of claim construction, we note that claim 10 is directed to a device that merely comprises a “multiplexer circuitry,” first and second “encoder,” and “control circuitry.” Further, the contested limitation of “that operates in a first mode and a second mode” is directed to functional language of the claimed multiplexer circuitry, while the contested limitation of “that synchronizes the multiplexing circuitry” is directed to functional language of the claimed control circuitry (claim 10, emphases added). That is, the contested limitations are directed to functional language that does not further limit the structure of the claimed device. Our reviewing court guides that the patentability of an apparatus claim “depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure.” Catalina Marketing Int’l. Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also Superior Industries, Inc. v. Masaba, Inc., 2013-1302, 2014 WL 163046 at *5 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Rader, J., concurring) (“[A] system claim generally covers what the system is, not what the system does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 . . . (1875) (‘The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not’) and Appeal 2012-000325 Application 10/776,541 8 In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in apparatus/device claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009)”).1 Nevertheless, Adolph is directed to the transmission of digital signals where video, audio, and data signals are combined to produce common program data stream that are sent through program multiplexers, which a transport multiplexer combines to produce a transport data stream (FF 1). A Splitter channel splits the transport data stream into individual partial data streams distributed between three sub-channels (FF 2). A succeeding encoder unit MOD processes the signals using convolutional coding for the purpose of internal error protection and digital modulation, generating baseband signals, which are converted by a succeeding modulator BBRF into a suitable transmission format (FF 3). We agree with the Examiner’s finding Adolph teaches “multiplexer circuitry” (Ans. 5). Further, since the SP splits the transport data stream into three streams and MOD and BBRF have differing outputs, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that outputs from the MOD and the BBRF at least suggest “a first output” and “a second output” (FF 2 and 3). In addition, Hinchley discloses a multimedia engine adjusts the data rate output of encoder by adjusting the rate of the data input to the encoder (FF 4). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Hinchley “teaches the multimedia engine as control circuitry that synchronizes the multiplexing 1 Superior Industries,Inc. v. Masaba, Inc., 2013-1302, 2014 WL 163046 (Fed. Cir. 2014) is a non-precedential opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. However, we consider the concurring opinion by Chief Judge Rader as guiding because it cites precedential authority in support. Appeal 2012-000325 Application 10/776,541 9 circuitry, the first encoder, and the second encoder” (Ans. 47). That is, we find that multimedia engine that controls the encoders comprises control circuitry (claim 10). Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Adolph in view of Hinchley. Further, independent claims 24 having similar claim language and claims 11-20 and 25-33 (depending from claims 10 and 24) which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 10. Claims 10-12, 15, 16, 20, 24, 25, 28, 29, and 33 Appellants contend that “Krishnamurthy clearly teaches that the disclosed ‘multi-channel mode’ relates not to operating modes that define video and audio content of multiplexed streams, but instead to transmission of statistical parameters of encoders” (App. Br. 23). Appellants assert that “FIG. 5 of Krishnamurthy . . . does not disclose element 506 as having two outputs” (App. Br. 24). Appellants argue “Adolph does not disclose or suggest that the ‘transmitter’ of FIG. 3 of Adolph transmits the output of ‘MUX 1’ to circuitry external to the ‘transmitter’ via a first output of the ‘transmitter’ and transmits the output of ‘MUX2’ to circuitry external to the ‘transmitter’ via a second output of the ‘transmitter’” (App. Br. 26). Appellants finally contend Krishnamurthy does not teach “‘synchronization’ by ‘CPU board 304’, or any other element” (App. Br. 28) and the Examiner has not provided support for “an assertion of inherency” (App. Br. 30). However, the Examiner finds “Krishnamurthy teaches a single-chip audio/video encoder device . . . that comprises first encoder circuitry” and “controller circuitry” (Ans. 52) and “Krishnamurthy’s controller circuitry synchronizes operation of the first encoder, the second encoder and the Appeal 2012-000325 Application 10/776,541 10 multiplexer circuit” (Ans. 60). The Examiner finds further that “Adolph teaches multiplexer circuitry” (Ans. 53). Krishnamurthy is directed to a multiplexer and traffic controller for concurrent transmission of multiple compressed video bitstream having a single-chip audio/video encoder circuitry which reproduces the video synchronization signals for the MPEG2 video encoder chip (FF 5 and 6). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that “Krishnamurthy’s controller circuitry synchronizes operation of the first encoder, the second encoder and the multiplexer circuit” (Ans. 60). As noted supra, Adolph is directed to the transmission of digital signals including a multiplexer circuit (FF 1). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that “Adolph teaches multiplexer circuitry” (Ans. 53). Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Krishnamurthy in view of Adolph. Further, independent claims 24 having similar claim language and claims 11, 12, 15, 16, 20, 25, 28, 29, and 33 (depending from claims 10 and 24) which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 10. Claims 10-36 Appellants argue that claim 10-36 is patentable over the cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 10 (App. Br. 19-20 and 35-36). As noted supra, however, we find that the combination of Adolph and Hinchley at least suggests all the features of claim 10. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21, 22, 34, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Adolph in view of Hinchley and Ishihara; of claims 23 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Adolph in view of Hinchley, Ishihara, and Kopet; of Appeal 2012-000325 Application 10/776,541 11 claims 13 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Krishnamurthy in view of Adolph and Bruck; of claims 14, 17-19, 27, and 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Krishnamurthy in view of Adolph and Hinchley; of claims 21, 22, 34, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Krishnamurthy in view of Adolph and Boice; and of claims 21, 22, 34, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Krishnamurthy in view of Adolph and Kopet. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 10-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation