Ex Parte Hugosson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2016

12926909 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/926,909 12/16/2010
73459 7590 07/29/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P,C
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ola Hugosson
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.
JRL-550-1319 8603
EXAMINER
PICON-FELICIANO, ANA J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2016 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
'UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OLA HUGOSSON and ERIK PERSSON
Appeal2014-009241
Application 12/926,909
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-33, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is ARM Limited. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2014-009241
Application 12/926,909
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention generally relates to a video data processing
apparatus for encoding video. Spec. 1:4--5. Claim 1, which is illustrative,
reads as follows:
1. A video encoding apparatus for encoding a video stream
compnsmg:
a reference frame cache configured to cache reference
frame video data retrieved from a reference frame storage unit in
external memory, said reference frame video data cached in said
reference frame cache being derived from an individual frame of
said video stream;
a first source frame storage unit configured to store a first
block of unencoded video data taken from a first source frame of
said video stream;
a second source frame storage unit configured to store a
second block of unencoded video data taken from a second
source frame of said video stream;
a first video encoder configured to perform a first
encoding operation to encode said first block ofunencoded video
data with reference to said reference frame video data cached in
said reference frame cache; and
a second video encoder configured to perform a second
encoding operation to encode said second block of unencoded
video data with reference to said reference frame video data
cached in said reference frame cache,
wherein said first video encoder and said second video
encoder are configured to perform said first encoding operation
and said second encoding operation in parallel with one another.
2
Appeal2014-009241
Application 12/926,909
Rejection
Claims 1-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Tokumitsu (US 2007 /0280348 Al;
published Dec. 6, 2007) and Murdock (US 2003/0138045 Al; published
July 24, 2003). Final Act. 2-20.
Dispositive Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of T okumitsu
and Murdock teaches or suggests:
a first video encoder configured to perform a first
encoding operation to encode said first block ofunencoded video
data with reference to said reference frame video data cached in
said reference frame cache; and
a second video encoder configured to perform a second
encoding operation to encode said second block of unencoded
video data with reference to said reference frame video data
cached in said reference frame cache,
as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
the combination of Tokumitsu and Murdock fails to teach or suggest the
claimed first and second video encoders. App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 1-3. In
particular, Appellants contend Tokumitsu' s "first and second coders 102 and
103 do not access the same reference frame data ... stored in the same -- --
reference frame cache," as required by claim 1. App. Br. 10.
In response, the Examiner finds:
Tokumitsu discloses a moving picture coding apparatus
3
Appeal2014-009241
Application 12/926,909
that divides each frame of a moving picture into parts and assigns
the parts to different coding units, which compressively code
their respective parts. The coding process includes motion
compensation with respect to a reference frame. Each coding
unit has its own reference frame memory. To generate reference
frame data, each coding unit receives, decodes, and
decompresses the coded data generated by at least one other
coding unit as well as decompressing the data . . . . Further on,
an input partitioner 101 receives an input picture that sends it to
the coding units 102 and 103 . . . . An input frame memory
labeled 1 in Fig. 2 and labeled 313 in Fig. 3 receives the input
picture to be coded from the input partitioner via the picture input
port 105 in coding units 102 and 103.
Ans. 20-21.
As acknowledged by the Examiner (Ans. 20-21 ), Tokumitsu teaches
that "[e]ach coding unit has its own reference frame memory that stores
reference picture data representing a preceding frame." Tokumitsu, ,-r 11; see
also Figs. 1-3, Abstract. The Examiner's findings fail to explain how each
coding unit storing its own reference picture data, as taught by Tokumitsu,
teaches or suggests each coding unit encoding a block of video data with
reference to reference video data cached in the same reference claim cache,
as required by claim 1. Further, the Examiner has not established on this
record that Murdock cures the deficiencies of Tokumitsu regarding this
limitation. As such, we are constrained by the record to not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We similarly do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claims 2-33, which recite similar limitations.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
4
Appeal2014-009241
Application 12/926,909
REVERSED
5