Ex Parte Hsiun et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 29, 2010

10404389 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 29, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte VIVIAN HSIUN, ALEXANDER G. MACINNIS, and
XIAODONG XIE
____________________

Appeal 2009-007682
Application 10/404,3891
Technology Center 2600

____________________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MARC S. HOFF,
and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 The real party in interest is Broadcom Corporation.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or filing a request for rehearing, as
recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper
delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode)
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007682
Application 10/404,389

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-10 and 23.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ invention relates to an improved inverse quantizer (IQ)
500 that is designed to support a large number of coding algorithms and
standards. The improved inverse quantizer 500 includes a central processor
540 and modular operation blocks, 504, 512, and 530, representing
respective IQ processing steps of decoding, inverse scanning, and
dequantization. When a particular decoding algorithm or standard requires
software processing of some algorithmic steps performed at any modular
operation block, the central processor 540 executes software at intervening
points, 520 and 522, between the modular operation blocks, 504, 512, and
530. Each modular operation is represented as a table entry in an associated
memory area 542, wherein the modular operation is selectably performed
when a corresponding table entry is referenced (e.g., the inverse scan
operation 512 is invoked when Table 2 is downloaded). If inverse
quantization does not need to be performed on a set of data, these modular
operations can be bypassed as needed. Other processing operations 524 can
be performed between steps as needed to accommodate different coding
standards. (Abstract; Fig. 5; Spec. ¶¶ [41]-[43])
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. An inverse quantizer apparatus for processing macroblocks of data,
the apparatus having modular operation elements that can be selectably
invoked to accommodate different coding standards, the apparatus
comprising:

3 Claims 11-22 have been cancelled.
2
Appeal 2009-007682
Application 10/404,389

a memory area having table entries corresponding to the modular
operation elements;
a modular operation including a decoder device, whereby the decoder
device is selectably invoked via accessing the associated decoder device
table entry;
a modular operation including an inverse scan device, whereby the
scan device is selectably invoked via accessing the associated scan device
table entry;
a modular operation, including a de-quantizer device, wherein the de-
quantizer device is selectably invoked via accessing the associated de-
quantizer device table entry; and
at least one modular operation, including a processing operation that
can be invoked between other modular operations, where the processing
operation is selectably invoked via accessing the associated processing
operation table entry.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Zhang US 5,610,657 Mar. 11, 1997
Penna US 6,842,124 B2 Jan. 11, 2005

Claims 1-10 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zhang in view of Penna.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Appeal Brief (filed August 7, 2008) and the
Examiner’s Answer (mailed November 5, 2008), for their respective details.

ISSUE
Appellants contend that the Examiner has erred in referring to
elements of Zhang that are not part of any of the inverse quantizers 305-315,
(App. Br. 5). Appellants assert that Zhang is silent with respect to an inverse
quantizer using modular operation elements that can be selectably invoked
3
Appeal 2009-007682
Application 10/404,389

to accommodate different coding standards (App. Br. 6). Appellants argue
that although Zhang mentions three image compression standards (JPEG,
Px64, and MPEG), Zhang does not disclose an inverse quantization
apparatus that can accommodate all three standards by employing modular
operation elements that can be selectably invoked, as the claims require
(App. Br. 6). In particular, Appellants assert that Zhang does not disclose an
inverse quantization apparatus including modular operation blocks
representing the functions of decoding, inverse scanning, and dequantization
which may be selectably invoked as required by the claims (App. Br. 7-8).
Appellants further assert that Penna’s look-up tables, which decode tokens
and implement a variable-length process, are unrelated to selecting different
operations by selecting different operation table entries, as claimed (App.Br.
9).
Appellants’ contentions present us with the following dispositive
issue:
Does the combination of Zhang and Penna disclose an inverse
quantizer apparatus that includes “a modular operation including an inverse
scan device, whereby the scan device is selectably invoked via accessing the
associated scan device table entry” as claimed?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Penna
1. Penna discloses that a decoding step can be performed using a
look-up table (LUT) having entries that include decoded values
4
Appeal 2009-007682
Application 10/404,389

corresponding to tokens potentially occurring with the coded bitstream (col.
3, ll. 41-45).
Zhang
2. Zhang discloses a multi-functional system 10 for digital
transmission and storage of data that is capable of handling a variety of
signal processing tasks including the transmission and efficient storage of
still and full-motion video information, voice, FAX, and other types of data
(Fig. 1; col. 6, ll. 57-63; col. 7, ll. 53-57; col. 8, ll. 62-65).
3. Zhang discloses that an adaptive video compression encoder
200 is part of processor 100 included within the system 10. The encoder 200
processes a plurality of separate digitized signals representing various
components of the image signals. Each individual signal may be processed
separately in parallel and combined at a later stage as is well known in the
art. Encoder 200 includes inverse quantizer blocks 218, 222, 226, 230, 234,
and 248 that recover the quantized data and inverse transform blocks 219,
223, 227, 231, 235, and 249 that inversely transform the recovered quantized
data into the spatial domain (Fig. 2; col. 8, ll. 40-57; col. 14, ll. 37-43).
4. Zhang discloses that an adaptive video compression decoder
300 is part of processor 100. The “decoder 300 decodes and demultiplexes
the block addresses, the block processing mode, the quantized transform
coefficients, the quantization parameters, motion vectors and other control
data” (col. 14, ll. 58-67). Decoder 300 includes inverse quantizer blocks
305, 307, 309, 311, 313, and 315 that recover the quantized data and inverse
transform blocks 306, 308, 310, 312, 314, and 316 that inversely transform
the recovered data into the spatial domain (Fig. 3; col. 14, l. 58- col. 15, l. 8).
5
Appeal 2009-007682
Application 10/404,389

PRINCIPLE OF LAW
On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “the
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Further, the Court stated “[t]he combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416.

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1-10 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Independent claim 1 recites an inverse quantizer that includes “a
modular operation including an inverse scan device, whereby the scan
device is selectably invoked via accessing the associated scan device table
entry.” Independent claim 23 recites a similar claim limitation.
We consider Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive to show
Examiner error. Although Zhang discloses a system that is capable of
handling a variety of signal processing tasks including the transmission and
efficient storage of still and full-motion video information, voice, FAX, and
other types of data, we do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that the
combination of Zhang and Penna discloses modular operation elements
including IQ processing steps that may be selectably invoked by accessing a
table entry (Ans. 15; FF 1 and 2). Zhang discloses a processor 100 that
includes an adaptive video compression encoder 200 and an adaptive video
compression decoder 300 (FF 3 and 4). Encoder 200 includes inverse
quantizer blocks 218, 222, 226, 230, 234, and 248 (FF 3). Similarly,
decoder 300 includes inverse quantizers 305, 307, 309, 311, 313, and 315
6
Appeal 2009-007682
Application 10/404,389

(FF. 4). We find, however, that Zhang merely discloses conventional
inverse quantizers. Zhang is silent as to any improvement or modification to
the design of any of its conventional inverse quantizers. We agree with
Appellants that Zhang does not disclose a modular operation for the IQ
processing steps of decoding, inverse scanning, and dequantization (App. Br.
7-8). Although Penna discloses using a look-up table to perform a decoding
step, Penna does not cure the deficiency of Zhang (FF 1). Thus, the
combination of Penna and Zhang does not disclose “a modular operation
including an inverse scan device that is selectably invokable via accessing an
associated inverse scan device table entry in a memory area” as required by
the claim (App. Br. 7).
Therefore, we find that the Examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness because the combination of Zhang and Penna does not
disclose an inverse quantizer that includes “a modular operation including an
inverse scan device, whereby the scan device is selectably invoked via
accessing the associated scan device table entry” as claimed. As a result, we
will not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and
23, nor that of dependent claims 2-10.

CONCLUSION
The references do not disclose an inverse quantizer apparatus that
includes “a modular operation including an inverse scan device, whereby the
scan device is selectably invoked via accessing the associated scan device
table entry.”
ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10 and 23 is reversed.
7
Appeal 2009-007682
Application 10/404,389

REVERSED

ELD

MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD
500 WEST MADISON STREET
SUITE 3400
CHICAGO, IL 60661

8