11204939 (B.P.A.I. May. 29, 2012)

Ex Parte Adiletta et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 29, 2012

11204939 (B.P.A.I. May. 29, 2012)

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. 11/204,939 08/15/2005 Matthew J. Adiletta 200308070-4 2799 7590 05/30/2012 Hewlett-Parkard Company IP Administration Legal Department, M/S 35 P.O. Box 272400 Fort Collins, CO 80527-2400 EXAMINER CHEN, WENPENG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2624 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/30/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _____________ Ex parte MATTHEW J. ADILETTA, SAMUEL W. HO, and SUBRAMANIA IYER SUDHARSANAN _____________ Appeal 2009-014287 Application 11/204,939 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-20. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. 1 The Examiner has indicated claims 6-7 and 18-19 as containing allowable subject matter. Fin. Rej. 5-6. Appeal 2009-014287 Application 11/204,939 2 INVENTION The invention is directed to a method, circuit, and apparatus for performing motion compensation. Spec. 1-5. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method for performing motion compensation on video data comprising the steps of: segmenting a first portion of video data into a first plurality of macroblocks, each macroblock comprising a plurality of pixels; segmenting a second portion of video data into a second plurality of macroblocks, each macroblock comprising a like plurality of pixels; comparing one of said plurality of macroblocks of said first portion of video data to each of said plurality of macroblocks of said second portion of video data; and determining a macroblock of said second portion of video data which most closely matches said macroblock of interest in said first portion of video data. REFERENCE Maturi US 5,731,850 Mar. 24, 1998 REJECTION AT ISSUE Claims 1-5, 8-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Maturi. Ans. 3-5. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that Maturi discloses comparing one of said plurality of macroblocks of said first portion of video data to each of said plurality of macroblocks of said second portion of video data? Appeal 2009-014287 Application 11/204,939 3 ANALYSIS We select claim 1 as representative of the group comprising claims 1- 5, 8-17, and 20 since Appellants do not separately argue any of the other claims with particularity. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii). Claim 1 recites “comparing one of said plurality of macroblocks of said first portion of video data to each of said plurality of macroblocks of said second portion of video data.” The Examiner finds that Maturi’s discloses this limitation, as can be seen in Figures 3a-3c where the first macroblock (102 in Figure 3a) is compared to subsequent macroblocks (102 in Figures 3b and 3c) to determine a motion vector. Ans. 6-8. Appellants argue that a comparison of macroblocks is never made since, in Maturi, a large area (not a macroblock) is compared to a small area that is determined from a macroblock but is not a macroblock. App. Br. 8. Additionally, Appellants argue that the blocks that are compared do not contain a “like plurality of pixels.” Reply Br. 2. We disagree with Appellants. Appellants arguments are all directed toward Figures 4a-4c of Maturi (App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 2-3) and do not address the Examiner’s specific findings, as indicated above. As such, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 8-17, and 20. 2,3 2 We have decided the appeal before us. However, should there be further prosecution of claims 1-7, the Examiner’s attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. § 101 and U.S. Patent &Trademark Office, Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos, 75 Fed. Reg. 43,922 (July 27, 2010); David J. Kappos, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010); and U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009, available at Footnote continued on next page. Appeal 2009-014287 Application 11/204,939 4 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that Maturi discloses comparing one of said plurality of macroblocks of said first portion of video data to each of said plurality of macroblocks of said second portion of video data. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-5, 8-17, and 20 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 ELD http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/2009-08- 25_interim_101_instructions.pdf. 3 Additionally, should there be further prosecution with respect to claims 8- 12 (reciting “means-plus-function” language) the Examiner’s attention is directed to Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328 (CAFC 2008), and 76 Fed. Reg. 7162, 7167-68 at Part 1. III. C.1-3; Suppl. Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications.