Ex Parte Morad et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 28, 2012

10170019 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte AMIR MORAD, LEONID YAVITS, GADI OXMAN,
EVGENY SPEKTOR, MICHAEL KHRAPKOVSKY,
and GREGORY CHERNOV
____________

Appeal 2010-000533
Application 10/170,019
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DENISE M. POTHIER,
and JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 34-58. Claims 1-33 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2010-000533
Application 10/170,019

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to an apparatus for video and audio
encoding on a single chip (see Spec. ¶¶ [24 – 26]).
Exemplary Claim
Claim 34 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows.
34. A single-chip audio/video encoder device
comprising, on a single integrated circuit:
first encoder circuitry, second encoder circuitry,
multiplexer circuitry, controller circuitry, and at least one bus
interface;
wherein the first encoder circuitry comprises:
a first video encoder that receives first
uncompressed video data from a first video source
external to the device and produces first
compressed video,
a first audio encoder that receives first
uncompressed audio data from a first audio source
external to the device, and that produces first
compressed audio, and
a first memory interface that interfaces
directly with first storage external to the device;
wherein the second encoder circuitry comprises:
a second video encoder that receives second
uncompressed video data from a second video
source external to the device and that produces
second compressed video,
a second audio encoder that receives second
uncompressed audio data from a second audio
source external to the device and that produces
second compressed audio, and
a second memory interface that interfaces
directly with second storage external to the device;
Appeal 2010-000533
Application 10/170,019

3
wherein the multiplexer circuitry operating in a first
mode,
multiplexes the first compressed video, the
first compressed audio, the second compressed
video, and the second compressed audio to form a
first multiplexed stream operably coupled via a
first output to circuitry external to the device;
wherein the multiplexer circuitry operating in a second
mode,
multiplexes the first compressed video and
the first compressed audio to form the first
multiplexed stream operably coupled via the first
output to circuitry external to the device, and
multiplexes the second compressed video
and the second compressed audio to form a second
multiplexed stream operably coupled via a second
output to circuitry external to the device;
wherein the controller circuitry synchronizes operation of
the first encoder circuitry, the second encoder circuitry, and the
multiplexer circuitry; and
wherein the at least one bus interface operably couples
the controller circuitry and at least one processor external to the
device.
The Rejections
Claims 34, 36-49, and 51-58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Krishnamurthy (US 6,665,872 B1), Hinchley
(US 6,490,250 B1), and Boice (US 6,823,013 B1).
Claims 35 and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Krishnamurthy, Hinchley, Boice, and Bruck (US
6,519,289 B1).
Appeal 2010-000533
Application 10/170,019

4
Claims 34-58 stand provisionally rejected under the doctrine of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting in view of claims 10-36 of
copending application 10/776,541.

ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 34 and 47, the Examiner finds that Krishnamurthy
teaches the recited single chip encoder, except for the first and second
storage for which the Examiner applies Hinchley (Ans. 5-7). The Examiner
further finds that Krishnamurthy does not disclose the recited motion
estimation processors and relies on Boice for disclosing motion estimation
processors comprising a plurality of search processors recited in claim 47
(Ans. 7). The Examiner specifically reads the claimed multiplexer circuitry
on the statistical multiplexing (stat-mux) board 308 shown in Figure 3 of
Krishnamurthy (Ans. 6, 14).
Appellants contend that nothing in Krishnamurthy discloses or
suggests that the stat-mux 308 operates in the first and seconds modes, as
recited in claim 34 (App. Br. 16-17). The Examiner responds by stating that
the description of the stat-mux 308 as capable of (1) multiplexing
compressed video and audio bitstreams and (2) supporting up to 24 channels
from 24 encoders 306 indicate that the multiplexer operates in the first and
second modes (Ans. 16-18). In response, Appellants contend that even if the
relied-on portions of Krishnamurthy disclose multiplexing a first
compressed audio and video into a multiplexed stream, no discussion of
forming the first multiplexed stream and the second multiplexed stream from
first and second compressed video and audio can be found in the reference
(Reply Br. 8-9).
Appeal 2010-000533
Application 10/170,019

5
We agree with Appellants. Krishnamurthy’s description of the
stat-mux board 308 supporting up to 24 channels (see col. 18, ll. 50-52) and
multiplexing the compressed audio and video bitstreams (see col. 19,
ll. 42-47) does not include the specific multiplexing arrangement of the
claimed second mode. Therefore, we find that the Examiner’s assertion with
respect to Krishnamurthy teaching the claimed multiplexer circuitry
operating in two modes, as required in claim 34, is not supported by
evidence of record.

CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 34, as well as claim 47 which includes similar limitations. Therefore,
we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 34 and 47, nor of
claims 35-46 and 48-58 dependent therefrom.
We do not reach the Examiner’s provisional obviousness-type double
patenting rejection. See Ex parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884, 1885 (BPAI
2010) (precedential).

Appeal 2010-000533
Application 10/170,019

6
DECISION
1

The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 34-58 with respect to
obviousness rejection is reversed.

REVERSED

ELD

1
We have decided the appeal before us. However, we observe that support
in the Specification for a multiplexer circuitry operating in a first and a
second mode, as recited in claim 34, is not readily apparent. In case of
further prosecution of claims 34-58, the Examiner’s attention is directed to
the written description requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and whether
such features are described in the Specification of the present application or
the related provisional applications. If these limitations are determined to be
supported only in the provisional applications, the Examiner should consider
that incorporation by reference to a provisional application for such
“essential material” is not permitted under 37 C.F.R. § 1.57.