Amazon Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2022

2020005063 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2022)

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. 15/180,985 06/13/2016 Brian G. Lewis 020346.080403 8308 131836 7590 03/02/2022 Hogan Lovells US LLP - Amazon 3 Embarcadero Center Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94111 EXAMINER ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2022 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): hlusdocketing@hoganlovells.com teri.nelmark@hoganlovells.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BRIAN G. LEWIS Appeal 2020-005063 Application 15/180,985 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use “Appellant” to reference the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Amazon Technologies, Inc.” Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claims 2, 9, and 16 are canceled. Appeal Br. 19, 21, 23. Appeal 2020-005063 Application 15/180,985 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s Invention “The present invention relates to video compression generally and, more particularly, to a method and/or architecture for efficiently implementing a MPEG-4 AVC deblocking filter on an array of parallel processors.” Spec. 1. Claim 8, reproduced below, is illustrative of argued subject matter. 8. An apparatus comprising: a working buffer, including a first working buffer of a first processor and a second working buffer of a second processor, configured to store pixels during filter processing, the working buffer including a specified number of pixels in height and a specified number of pixels in width; an output buffer configured to store filtered pixel values; and an array of parallel processors, including the first processor and the second processor, the array of parallel processors being configured to sequentially process the pixel values in the working buffer through a plurality of filter processing stages, each of the plurality of filter processing stages computing filtered pixel values for one or more respective stage output regions of each filter processing stage, wherein the plurality of filter processing stages includes: a first filter processing stage configured to filter pixel values across vertical edges in the pixel values in the working buffer via a vertical filter, the vertical filter processing a plurality of macroblocks forming an input into at least the first working buffer, wherein the vertical edges extend to encompass a plurality of rows, and each row of the plurality of rows is processed concurrently via the array of parallel processors; and a second filter processing stage configured to filter pixel values across horizontal edges in the pixel values in the working buffer via a horizontal filter, the horizontal filter processing the plurality of macroblocks forming an input Appeal 2020-005063 Application 15/180,985 3 into the working buffer, wherein the horizontal edges extend to encompass a plurality of columns, and each column of the plurality of rows is processed concurrently via the array of parallel processors, wherein the vertical filter of the first filter processing stage and the horizontal filter of the second filter processing stage form a filter region that extends to encompass at least a portion of multiple macroblocks of the plurality of macroblocks, the filter region having boundaries that do not align with at least a subset of macroblock boundaries of the plurality of macroblocks, the filter region encompassing at least a first section that includes a plurality of full macroblocks and at least a second section that includes a plurality of partial macroblocks forming a plurality of partial filter regions, the plurality of partial filter regions being grouped and processed together via the second working buffer. Appeal Br. 20-21. Rejections Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, as being indefinite. Final Act. 3. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, as failing the written description requirement. Final Act. 3. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bronstein (US 2008/0123750 A1; May 29, 2008) and Li (US 2006/0029288 A1; Feb. 9, 2006). Final Act. 3. 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 All claims are rejected for indefiniteness. Final Act. 3. The Examiner and Appellant address the claims as a group. Final Act. 6-9; Appeal Br. 10- 11; Ans. 9-12; Reply Br. 5-8. As Appellant notes (and does not contest), the Examiner presents the rejection by reference to claim 8. See, e.g., Reply Appeal 2020-005063 Application 15/180,985 4 Br. 6 (“[C]laim 8 . . . appears to be the claim discussed in the Examiner’s Answer[.]”); Ans. 9 (referencing claim 8’s “working buffer[] including . . .”). We accordingly address the issues with reference to claim 8. For the following reasons, we find no error in the rejection of claim 8 and therefore sustain this rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (representative claims). Appellant fails to timely and meaningfully address the Examiner’s following determination: [Claim 8] recite[s] “a working buffer[] including a first working buffer of a first processor and a second working buffer of a second processor[] configured to store pixels[,] . . . an output buffer configured to store filtered pixel[,] . . . a first filter processing stage configured to filter pixel[,] . . . a second filter processing stage configured to filter . . . [.]” [These are] generic terms modified by functional language [and] not modified by structure[, e.g.,] a structural term[. That is, these recitations are] not naming a structure readily recognized by persons of skill in the art to perform the claimed function. The limitation[s thus] invoke[] 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), sixth paragraph, and shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding differentiated structure for each claimed function. Final Act. 8-9 (original ellipses; emphasis omitted; paragraphing added); see also Traxcell Techs., LLC v. Sprint Commc’ns Co. LP, 15 F.4th 1121, 1134 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“A means-plus-function claim is indefinite if the specification fails to disclose adequate corresponding structure to perform the claimed function.”). Thus, the Examiner determines that: the claim uses the “buffer” and “filter” terms as structureless, nonce words; the respective claim features (e.g., “first working buffer” and “first filter processing stage”) Appeal 2020-005063 Application 15/180,985 5 accordingly lack structure in their recited terminology; the features also lack structure in their recited descriptions (e.g., in their “configured to” descriptions); and, though lacking recited structure and thus invoking 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (i.e., being means-plus-function features), the features lack “corresponding structure” in the Specification and are therefore indefinite. Id. Appellant’s only response is that “one skilled in the art would readily understand . . . [a] buffer is a region of physical memory storage used for temporary storage[,] . . . may include multiple regions [(]and different processors may access these regions[); thus,] . . . associated structure is clear and readily apparent[.]” Reply Br. 6. We will not consider this response because it is unaccompanied by cited supporting evidence and stated good cause for being raised in the Reply Brief. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“The fatal defect in this argument is that there is no competent evidence which would negate the [Office’s] conclusion[.] Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”); Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“An expanded panel was convened in this appeal to consider whether arguments that could have been presented in the Principal Brief on Appeal, but were not, may be presented in the Reply Brief in the absence of a showing of good cause. We conclude . . . 37 C.F.R. § 41 (2009) . . . do[es] not require the Board to consider such belated arguments.”). And, in any event, this response does not address the Examiner’s determinations for the claimed filters.3 3 We note that “filter” is considered a functional description of processing. The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh Edition (2000), defines “filter” as follows: “(2) (A) A device or program that separates data, signals, or material in accordance with specified criteria.” Appeal 2020-005063 Application 15/180,985 6 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 All claims are rejected for failing the written description requirement. Final Act. 3. The Examiner and Appellant address the claims as a group. Final Act. 6-9; Appeal Br. 10-11; Ans. 9-12; Reply Br. 5-8. As Appellant notes (and does not contest), the Examiner presents the rejection by reference to claim 8. See supra 4 (first paragraph’s citations of Reply Br. 6 and Ans. 9).4 We accordingly address the issues with reference to claim 8. For the following reasons, we do not sustain this rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1. Id. at 435. The definition functionally describes a filter. The definition does not even associate a buffer with structure aside from stating a buffer can be a “device” (and, also, can rather be a “program”), which is merely a nonce-word, black-box reference to structure. See supra n.3 (citations for Williamson and Zeroclick). 4 The Examiner does not provide a respective explanation of the § 112, ¶ 1, rejection, but rather provides an explanation of the § 112, ¶ 2 rejection and conveys that the § 112, ¶ 1, rejection is duplicative. See Final Act. 5 (stating the claims “are similarly rejected” under § 112, ¶ 1); id. at 6 (expressly introducing the § 112, ¶ 2, rejection), id. at 6 et seq. (not expressly addressing the § 112, ¶ 1, rejection). Although issues for a ¶ 1 rejection and ¶ 2 rejection can overlap, the written description requirement and indefiniteness are separate and distinct legal concepts. See Augme Techs., Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc., 755 F.3d 1326, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Appellants’ arguments appear to be based on the wrong legal standard, i.e., written description . . . as opposed to indefiniteness.”); Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (explaining the differences). For example, a specification’s failure to identify corresponding structure for means-plus-function features implicates § 112, ¶ 2 (see supra 4-5) but does not implicate § 112, ¶ 1. See In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Paragraph 6 of § 112 . . . does not itself implicate the requirements of § 112 ¶ 1.”). The above said, because we do not sustain § 112, ¶ 1, rejection, the Examiner’s failure to provide a respective explanation of the rejection is moot. Appeal 2020-005063 Application 15/180,985 7 The Examiner determines:5 [S]ince Applicant intends as its invention[] a particular use of “an array of parallel processors” that improves deblocking operation under the video coding standards, Applicant should [claim] this improvement [as] more than simply . . . using an array of parallel processors. Applicant should either claim a particular novel structure of the array of parallel processors[] or a particular novel algorithm for distributing the computations over the individual processors in an array of parallel processors[.] Final Act. 5-6 (emphasis omitted). Thus, the Examiner determines that: the claim scope has a great breadth with respect to how the array of parallel processors must be configured or used; the Specification discloses a “particular” array of parallel processors; and, accordingly, the Specification does not show the inventor possessed the full scope of features encompassed by the claimed array of parallel processors. Id. Appellant responds: [T]he rejection attempts to direct Appellant how the Examiner would like to see the claims presented, rather than actually examining the claims[.] . . . [T]he rejection . . . provides no basis . . . other than the Examiner’s preferences for how . . . claims [should be] presented. Appeal Br. 10. We are persuaded that the Examiner has failed to provide a prima facie case to reject the claims. Before stating why, we address whether a claim fails the written description if the scope of the claim is broader than the scope of the specification. On the one hand, there are ‘first-blush’ indications that the above condition does not implicate the written description requirement. See, e.g., In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1215 5 This is the Examiner’s only determination that is pertinent to § 112, ¶ 1. See supra n.5. Appeal 2020-005063 Application 15/180,985 8 (CCPA 1981) (“[With respect to the written description requirement,] that a claim may be broader than the specific embodiment disclosed in a specification is in itself of no moment.”); see also Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“In re Rasmussen . . . restated the uncontroversial proposition that ‘a claim may be broader than the specific embodiment disclosed in a specification.’ 650 F.2d at 1215[.]”). On the other hand, there are ‘first-blush’ indications that the condition fails the written description requirement. See, e.g., Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[O]ne sees the holding in Gentry [Gallery] for what it really was: an application of the settled principle that a broadly drafted claim must be fully supported by the written description[.]”). As reflected above, Gentry Gallery is instructive. In Gentry Gallery, . . . [c]ertain claims . . . recited the controls as mounted to the reclining seat sofa section rather than the console. [134 F.3d at] 1475. The Federal Circuit found these claims did not comply with the written description requirement because “the original disclosure clearly identifies the console as the only possible location for the controls” and “unambiguously limited the location of the controls to the console.” Id. at 1479-80. Co. v. Co., No. PATENT 10,597,843 B2, 2021 WL 972419, at *10 (PTAB. 2021). Based on the above, we reconcile the foregoing ‘first-blush’ indications of the case law by concluding a claim fails the written description requirement for overbreadth (i.e., for overreaching the Specification) only if reciting a feature disclaimed by the specification.6 See 6 We note that a claim can fail the written description requirement when the scope of the claim is broader than the scope of the specification-where a “genus claim[] . . . define[s] the boundaries of [the] claimed genus . . . [by simply claim[ing] a desired result, . . . [b]ut the specification . . . [fails to Appeal 2020-005063 Application 15/180,985 9 Gentry Gallery, 134 F.3d at 1479 (“[T]hough an applicant [] is generally allowed claims . . . cover[ing] more than the specific embodiment shown[,] . . . [the at-issue] disclosure unambiguously limit[s] the location of the controls to the console” and thereby “limit[s] the permissible breadth of [the] later-drafted claims.”), 1480 (“[I]t was not only important, but essential . . . , for the controls to be on the console.”).7 In order to provide a valid prima facie case, the Examiner must present evidence or reasons that the written description is inadequate. See In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1175 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (describing an examiner’s burden for rejecting a claim over the written description requirement). Here, because the principle issue is whether the claim recites a disclaimed feature (see the foregoing analysis), the Examiner must present evidence or reasons that the claim recites a feature disclaimed by the Specification. See id. (“If the [issue is whether the] applicant claims embodiments of the invention that are completely outside the scope of the specification, then the examiner . . . need only establish this fact to make out a prima facie case.”). The Examiner has not identified a recited feature for consideration, much less shown that a recited feature is disclaimed by the Specification. show] species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Genus claims are claim-drafting tools of chemical, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical arts. Our statements are not directed to genus claims. 7 We add that, because infringement protection (i.e., the overall scope of an application’s claims) cannot encompass a feature disclaimed by the Specification, a claim plainly should be invalidated if reciting a disclaimed feature. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (describing “specification . . . disclaimer” as a “disavowal[] of claim scope by the inventor”). Appeal 2020-005063 Application 15/180,985 10 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Though Appellant contends “[t]he Office Action does not provide a rejection of each element of the claims” (Appeal Br. 14), Appellant argues only one claim limitation and recognizes the rejection maps the limitation to Bronstein’s Figure 4 (id. at 14-16). The argued limitation is: [T]he filter region having boundaries that do not align with at least a subset of macroblock boundaries of the plurality of macroblocks . . . [and] encompassing at least a first section that includes a plurality of full macroblocks and at least a second section that includes a plurality of partial macroblocks[.] Appeal Br. 13-14. Bronstein’s Figure 4 is reproduced, below, and “illustrates . . . pixels required for and processed during the deblocking of a macroblock.” Bronstein ¶ 39. Appellant argues: “[T]here are not regions that ‘do not align’ [to] generate filter regions that include ‘full macroblocks’ and ‘partial macroblocks.’ Indeed, FIG. 4 merely shows numbered pixel blocks. There Bronstein’s above-reproduced Figure 4 illustrates pixels required for and processed during the deblocking of a macroblock. Appeal 2020-005063 Application 15/180,985 11 is no illustration of any filter region.” Id. at 15. And in the Reply Brief, Appellant further argues: “[T]here is no indication in the cited portions of Bronstein regarding a filter that partially extend outside of the macroblock[.] . . . [T]he blocks [1-44] cannot reasonably be interpreted as the edge filters.” Reply Br. 4. We are unpersuaded because Bronstein teaches: [T]he boundaries between 4x4 blocks inside a macroblock and between neighbor macro blocks may be visible (edge refers to a boundary between two blocks). In order to reduce this effect, a filter must be applied on the 16 vertical edges and 16 horizontal edges for the luma component[.] When we say edge filtering, we refer to changing the pixels in the blocks on the left and the right of the edge. For vertical edge, each of the 4 lines of 4 pixels in the 4x4 block on the left and each of the 4 lines in the block on the right from the edge must undergo filtering. Each filtering operation affects up to three pixels on either side of the edge. Bronstein ¶¶ 101-02; see also Ans. 4; Final Act. 14. In the above-described filtering for vertical edges, the 5 vertical edges of the fully-shown macroblock (comprised of blocks 11-14, 21-24, 31-34, 41-44) are deblocked by filtering 4 pixels to the left and right of each edge. Id. Thus, because each 4x4 block comprises 16 pixels in a 4x4 configuration, the left-most edge of the macroblock is deblocked by filtering the abutting four pairs of blocks 10-11, 20-21, 30-31, 40-41 (the edge abutting and separating the two blocks of each pair). Id.; see also id. ¶ 47 (teaching a block’s composition). As each of the 5 vertical edges is deblocked in the same manner, we conclude the deblocking of the macroblock filters all blocks of the macroblock (a full macroblock), the 4 left-side abutting blocks 10, 20, 30, 40 of another macroblock (a partial macroblock), and the 4 Appeal 2020-005063 Application 15/180,985 12 right-side abutting blocks (not shown) of another macroblock (a partial macroblock). We therefore disagree with Appellant’s argument that, as to Bronstein’s above macroblock, “there are not regions that ‘do not align’ [to] generate filter regions that include ‘full macroblocks’ and ‘partial macroblocks.’” Appeal Br. 15. Rather, for deblocking of the macroblock’s 5 vertical edges, the boundary of the filter region (bounding blocks 1-44) does not align with the boundary of the macroblock (bounding blocks 11- 14, 21-24, 31-34, 41-44). We therefore also disagree with Appellant’s argument that, as to Bronstein’s above macroblock, “there is no indication . . . [of] a filter that partially extend[s] outside of the macro block.” Reply Br. 4. Rather, for deblocking of the macroblock’s 5 vertical edges, the filter region extends outside of the macroblock to the 4 left-side abutting blocks 10, 20, 30, 40 and the 4 right-side abutting blocks (not shown). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20.8 8 “The affirmance of the rejection of a claim on any of the grounds specified constitutes a general affirmance of the decision of the examiner on that claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50. Appeal 2020-005063 Application 15/180,985 13 DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 112 Indefiniteness 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 112 Written Description 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 103(a) Bronstein, Li 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 Overall Outcome 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 AFFIRMED