Ex Parte Zhong et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 23, 2009

10029829 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 23, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte ZHUN ZHONG and YINGWEI CHEN
________________

Appeal 2009-0095
Application 10/029,829
Technology Center 2600
________________

Decided: April 23, 2009
________________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-0095
Application 10/029,829

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1 to 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We will reverse the rejections.
Appellants have invented a method and system for adjusting the
encoding complexity of an encoder based on a comparison of a fullness level
of a buffer with a predetermined threshold range. If the fullness level of the
buffer is higher than an upper threshold limit, then the complexity of the
encoder is lowered. On the other hand, if the fullness level of the buffer is
lower than a lower threshold limit, then the complexity of the encoder is
increased (Figs. 1, 2; Spec. 3, 4, 11, 12; Abstract).
Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and it reads as
follows:
1. A method for encoding a stream of data blocks using a
scalable encoder, the method comprising:
receiving a stream of data blocks;
storing said received data blocks in an input buffer;
encoding a first sequence of said stored data blocks from
said input buffer to produce a first encoded data block;
monitoring the fullness level of said input buffer for
comparison with a predetermined threshold range to yield an
outcome of said comparison; and
adjusting the complexity of said encoder based on said
outcome.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Iwahashi US 5,197,087 Mar. 23, 1993
Ishiyama US 2001/0008544 A1 Jul. 19, 2001
Appeal 2009-0095
Application 10/029,829

3
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 6, 8 to 15, and 17 to 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon the teachings of Iwahashi.
The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Iwahashi and Ishiyama.

ISSUES
Anticipation
Appellants argue (Br. 9) that “Iwahashi fails to teach controlling the
complexity of an encoder based on the fullness of an input buffer.” Thus,
the issue before us is:
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred by finding that
Iwahashi describes a method and system for controlling the complexity of an
encoder based on the fullness of an input buffer?
Obviousness
Appellants argue (Br. 7) that Iwahashi does not teach adjusting the
complexity of an encoder based on a comparison of a fullness level of an
input buffer and a predetermined threshold, and that Ishiyama does not cure
such a deficiency in the teachings of Iwahashi. Thus, the issue before us is:
Have Appellants shown that Iwahashi and the feedback disclosure of
Ishiyama neither teach nor would have suggested the claimed subject
matter?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Iwahashi describes a method and apparatus that controls the amount
of data to be encoded by encoder 10 by monitoring the energy levels of two
input buffers 11 and 12 (Fig. 1). When comparator 15 determines that the
Appeal 2009-0095
Application 10/029,829

4
difference between the energy level of buffer 11 and the energy level of
buffer 12 is small, an output from the comparator 15 turns switch 16 on so
that the data from the buffer memories 11 and 12 are supplied
simultaneously to the orthogonal converting circuit/encoder 17 (col. 4, ll. 30
to 35). When the comparator 15 determines that the difference between the
energy level of buffer 11 and the energy level of buffer 12 is large, an output
from the comparator 15 turns switch 16 off so that only the data from the
buffer 12 is supplied to the orthogonal converting circuit/encoder 17 (col. 4,
ll. 46 to 50).
2. Ishiyama was cited by the Examiner for the teachings of “storing of
the encoded data blocks in a memory medium 40 for subsequent retrieval;
and processing feedback information 105 from encoder 2 after producing the
first encoded data block” (Ans. 4).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses
expressly or under the principles of inherency each and every limitation of
the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342,
1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir.
1994).
Obviousness
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness, and Appellants have the burden of presenting a rebuttal to
the prima facie case. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

Appeal 2009-0095
Application 10/029,829

5

ANALYSIS
Anticipation
As indicated supra (FF 1), Iwahashi is concerned with a comparison
of the energy levels of the data that resides in the two input buffers 11 and
12. Iwahashi is silent as to determining the “fullness” of the energy levels in
the two input buffers, let alone comparing buffer “fullness” with a
predetermined threshold range to adjust encoder complexity as claimed.
Thus, we agree with Appellants’ argument (Br. 9) that “Iwahashi fails to
teach controlling the complexity of an encoder based on the fullness of an
input buffer.” It follows that anticipation has not been established by the
Examiner because Iwahashi does not disclose each and every limitation of
the claimed invention set forth in claims 1 to 6, 8 to 15, and 17 to 21. See
Atlas Powder, 190 F.3d at 1347; see also Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1478-79.
Obviousness
A prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed subject matter set
forth in dependent claims 7 and 16 has not been established by the Examiner
because the teachings of the reference to Ishiyama fail to cure the noted
shortcomings in the teachings of Iwahashi. See Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Anticipation
Appellants have demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding that
Iwahashi describes a method and system for controlling the complexity of an
encoder based on the fullness of an input buffer.

Appeal 2009-0095
Application 10/029,829

6
Obviousness
Appellants have demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding that
the applied references teach or would have suggested the claimed subject
matter.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 to 6, 8 to 15, and 17
to 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed, and the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.

REVERSED

babc

PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR NY 10510