Ex Parte Kurupati et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 5, 2018

13995589 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 5, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/995,589 07/30/2014
88032 7590 09/07/2018
Jordan IP Law, LLC
12501 Prosperity Drive, Suite 401
Silver Spring, MD 20904
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sreenath Kurupati
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.
P38493US 3943
EXAMINER
TOWE, JOSEPH DANIE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/07/2018 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):
info@jordaniplaw.com
admin@jordaniplaw.com
inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte SREENATH KURUPATI, TANUJARAO,
and ARUP GUPTA
Appeal 2018-001162
Application 13/995,589 1
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-18, 20-26, and 28, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to reducing memory bandwidth and storage in
video and image processing. Spec. 1.
1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is Intel Corp. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-001162
Application 13/995,589
Illustrative Claim
Claim 5 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
5. A system comprising:
a pixel difference module to generate a pixel difference
signal based on an input pixel signal associated with an image,
and a pixel prediction signal, wherein the pixel difference signal
identifies the difference between each pixel in the input pixel
signal and a prediction of the pixel;
a compression module including compression logic to,
receive the pixel difference signal,
conduct a compression of the pixel difference signal
based on a value of the pixel difference signal, and
generate a modified pixel difference signal based on
the compression;
a bit stream encoder to generate an encoded bit stream
based on the modified pixel difference signal;
a reverse reference decoder to generate a reference signal
based on the encoded bit stream; and
a pixel prediction module to generate the pixel prediction
signal based on the reference signal.
Rejections
Claims 5, 11-13, 20, 21, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(e) as anticipated by Budagavi (US 2012/0147955 Al; June 14, 2012).
Final Act. 5.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 14--16, and 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as obvious over the combination of Budagavi and Barton et al. (US
2010/0226627 Al; Sept. 9, 2010). Final Act. 11.
2
Appeal 2018-001162
Application 13/995,589
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over the
combination ofBudagavi, Barton, and Orlin et al. (US 2011/0228847 Al;
Sept. 22, 2011). Final Act. 22.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over the
combination ofBudagavi, Barton, and Jones (US 8,705,615 Bl; Apr. 22,
2014). Final Act. 23.
Claims 9, 17, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
obvious over the combination of Budagavi and Orlin. Final Act. 24.
Claims 10, 18, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
obvious over the combination of Budagavi and Jones. Final Act. 27.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Budagavi discloses "the pixel
difference signal identifies the difference between each pixel in the input
pixel signal and a prediction of the pixel," as recited in independent claim 5?
ANALYSIS
§ 102
Independent claim 5 recites "the pixel difference signal identifies the
difference between each pixel in the input pixel signal and a prediction of
the pixel."
The Examiner relies on Budagavi as disclosing this limitation. Final
Act. 5.
Appellants state, "Budagavi further discloses that a combiner is used
to add or subtract a predicted prediction unit (PU) (i.e., a predicted block of
pixels) from a current prediction unit (PU) (i.e., a current block of pixels) to
yield a resulting PU to a transform component." App. Br. 10-11 (citing
3
Appeal 2018-001162
Application 13/995,589
Budagavi ,r,r 41--44). In particular, Appellants note that Budagavi "discloses
that the resulting residual PU is 'a set of pixel difference values that quantify
differences between pixel values of the original PU and the predicted PU."'
Id. at 11 (quoting Budagavi ,r 42). Appellants argue that "[t]hese two pixel
calculations [in claim 5 and Budagavi] are not the same." Id.
However, Appellants fail to explain why those calculations are not the
same. As the Examiner notes (Ans. 4--5), Appellants have emphasized
certain words ( e.g., "quantify"), yet Appellants fail to explain how those
words distinguish from the claim language (e.g., "identifies a difference
between"). App. Br. 11. The Federal Circuit has held that "[t]he prior
inventor does not need to .... conceive of its invention using the same
words as the patentee would later use to claim it." Teva Pharm. Indus. Ltd.
v. AstraZeneca Pharms. LP, 661 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also
In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("the reference need not
satisfy an ipsissimis verb is test"). Thus, Appellants' mere assertion that the
prior art does not teach a particular element with no meaningful explanation
is unpersuasive. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 5, and claims 11-13, 20, 21, and 28, which Appellants argue are
patentable for similar reasons. See App. Br. 12; 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
§ 103
Appellants argue that the additional prior art references fail to address
the "deficiency of Budagavi." App. Br. 13-14. However, as discussed
above, we are not persuaded that Budagavi is deficient.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 6-10,
14--18, and 22-26.
4
Appeal 2018-001162
Application 13/995,589
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-18, 20-26, and 28.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5