Ex Parte Hallapuro et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 28, 2016

12695874 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/695,874 01/28/2010
10949 7590 11/01/2016
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Antti HALLAPURO
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
042933/412588 8759
EXAMINER
PHAN, DEAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2016 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTTI HALLAPURO and KIM SIMELIUS
Appeal2015-006733
Application 12/695,874
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14, all
the pending claims in the present application. Claims 3, 6, 9, and 12 are
canceled. See Claim Appendix. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2015-006733
Application 12/695,874
The present invention relates generally to the processing of digital
data by implementing an approximation of a discrete cosine transform
(DCT) and a quantization. See Spec. 1.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
receiving quantized transform coefficients;
dequantizing the quantized transform coefficients, to
generate dequantized transform coefficients, wherein the
dequantization is performed by multiplying the dequantized
coefficients by a fixed-point number and the dequantization is
performed using only 16-bit operations;
performing an inverse transform process to the
dequantized transform coefficients by applying only addition,
subtraction and bit-shift operations wherein the inverse
transform process is orthogonal; and
wherein the inverse transform process corresponds to a
transformation matrix given by:
wherein d is a rational number having a denominator
equal to 2n, wherein n is an integer.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
RI. Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zandi (US 5,867,602, Feb. 2, 1999) and
Lo et al., New Orthogonal Transform for Image Compression, 1993
(hereinafter Pub) (see Ans. 2); and
R2. Claims 2, 5, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Zandi, Pub, and Li (US 6,222,944 B 1, Apr. 24,
2001) (id.).
2
Appeal2015-006733
Application 12/695,874
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited prior art,
particularly Pub, teaches or suggests the inverse transform process is
orthogonal and corresponds to a transformation matrix, as set forth in claim
1?
Appellants contend "the transform matrix disclosed in Pub has two
parts, specifically, the sinusoidal and non-sinusoidal parts. Each of the
parts is essential to the transform .... In contrast, the claimed transform
matrix is only non-sinusoidal" (App. Br. 10). Appellants further contend
that Pub "clearly fails to disclose, teach, or suggest only the use of a non-
sinusoidal transform matrix" (Reply Br. 3).
The Examiner finds "the claim language does not require the 'only
non-sinusoidal' limitation. Instead, the claim recites 'the inverse transform
process is orthogonal' and 'the inverse transform process corresponds to a
transformation matrix given by: ... "'(Ans. 2-3, emphasis omitted). We
agree with the Examiner.
We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner's findings and
conclusions set forth in the Answer. Our discussions here will be limited to
the following points of emphasis.
First, we note, as a matter of claim construction, that the language of
claim 1 does not necessarily require that the transform matrix is only non-
sinusoidal, as proffered by Appellants (see claim 1 ). The claims measure the
invention. See SRI Int'! v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121
(Fed. Cir. 1985) (en bane). During prosecution before the USPTO, claims
are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, and the scope of a
claim cannot be narrowed by reading disclosed limitations into the claim.
3
Appeal2015-006733
Application 12/695,874
See In re J\lforris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404---05 (CCPA
1969).
Here, Appellants contend that "the claimed transform matrix is only
non-sinusoidal" (App. Br. 10) (emphasis added). However, claim 1 merely
recites, inter alia, that the inverse transform is orthogonal and corresponds to
a transformation matrix as shown in claim 1. Thus, the scope of claim 1 is
not limited to a non-sinusoidal matrix. The Examiner finds that Pub merely
needs to disclose an inverse transform that is orthogonal and corresponds to
a transformation matrix as claimed (see id. at 3, citing Pub pp. 263-264).
Given that Appellants' contentions inappropriately focus on the claimed
transform matrix requiring only a non-sinusoidal transform matrix, which we
disagree, we find unavailing Appellants' aforementioned contentions.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Appellants' arguments regarding the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 4, 7, 10, 13, and 14 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and
Appellants do not argue separate patentability for the dependent claims. See
App. Br. 6-12. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14.
4
Appeal2015-006733
Application 12/695,874
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections Rl-R2.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5