Ex Parte Vihriala

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 4, 2012

10484163 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 4, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JAAKO VIHRIALA
____________________

Appeal 2010-003272
Application 10/484,163
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, DAVID M. KOHUT, and JUSTIN T. ARBES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003272
Application 10/484,163

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a method, apparatus, and computer
readable storage medium having computer-executable components for
executing division using a look-up table (304) and a software means (302)
(claims 1, 13, 25, and 26; Fig. 3; Spec. 9:19-34).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with bracketing and
paragraph lettering added, reads as follows:

1. A method, comprising:

[A] retrieving an auxiliary divisor from a look-up table stored in an
electronic apparatus, the values of the auxiliary divisor in the look-up table
being predetermined numbers generated by the product of the powers of the
integer two as 2Q(y) and the reciprocal of the divisor, wherein y is the value
of the divisor and Q(y) is a variable integer dependent on the value of the
divisor and stored in the look-up table;

[B] executing division in the electronic apparatus by multiplying the
dividend of the division by the auxiliary divisor retrieved from the look-up
table;

[C] scaling the result of the division in the electronic apparatus in
order to represent it in the desired form by shifting the result obtained by
multiplying; and

[D] utilizing the scaled result of the division in signal processing
performed in the electronic apparatus.
Appeal 2010-003272
Application 10/484,163

3

Examiner’s Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter (see Final Rej. 2). Because the
Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
in the Answer (Ans. 3 and 9-10; Reply Br. 3), we do not reach the merits or
otherwise review this rejection in our decision. Accordingly, we have not
considered Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief regarding this
rejection (see App. Br. 13-16).
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 1-11, 13-23, and 25-28 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ooms (US 5,020,017, May 28,
1991). Ans. 4-8.
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 24 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Ooms and Official Notice
(Ans. 8-9).
Examiner’s Findings
The Examiner relies upon Ooms as disclosing limitation [A] of claim
1, and cites to, inter alia, Figure 2; the abstract; column 2, lines 28-32;
column 3, lines 11-30; column 6, lines 49-68; and column 7, lines 1-5 of
Ooms (Ans. 4-5 and 11-12). The Examiner relies upon Ooms’ column 6,
lines 49-68 and column 7, lines 1-5, in combination with the Examiner’s
calculations and explanation at pages 11-12 of the Answer, as meeting
limitation [A] of claim 1. Based on the calculations shown on page 12 of the
Answer, the Examiner finds that Ooms’ scaling factor K is a variable integer
as claimed.
Appeal 2010-003272
Application 10/484,163

4
The Examiner additionally relies upon Official Notice as to the step of
checking, before executing the division, that the divisor and the dividend
fulfill the initial conditions of the method being well-known in the art (Ans.
8-9), and determines that it would have been obvious to add such a checking
step to improve calculation by preventing non-computable division (Ans. 9).
Appellant’s Contentions1
(1) Appellant contends (App. Br. 16-36; Reply Br. 4-12) that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-11, 13-23, and 25-28 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for numerous reasons, including:
(a) Ooms fails to disclose or suggest limitation [A] of claim 1, and as
similarly recited in remaining independent claims 13, 25, and 26 (App. Br.
16-19; Reply Br. 4-11);
(b) Ooms describes scaling factors of stored denominator reciprocals
that are constant (213), because the scaling of the auxiliary divisors depends
directly on the divisor itself (App. Br. 16-19);
(c) Ooms’ scaling factor K is constant, and not variable as recited in
claim 1 (App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 7); and
(d) Ooms’ column 3, lines 11-22 fail to describe or suggest that
“K/M” is dependent on the denominator “y,” therefore the Examiner’s
calculations are erroneous (Reply Br. 7).
(2) Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12
and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Ooms and Official Notice:

1 Appellant presents similar arguments for claims 2-11, 14-23, 27, and 28 as
made for claims 1, 13, 25, and 26 (App. Br. 19-36; Reply Br. 11).
Appeal 2010-003272
Application 10/484,163

5
(a) for the same reasons as argued with respect to claim 1, that Ooms
fails to disclose limitation [A] of claim 1 from which claim 12 depends
(App. Br. 37-39); and
(b) because Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s Official Notice fails
to cure the deficiencies of Ooms (Reply Br. 11-12).
Principal Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellant’s arguments, the following issues are presented
for appeal: Did the Examiner err in rejecting (i) claims 1-11, 13-23, and 25-
28 as being anticipated by Ooms, and (ii) claims 12 and 24 as being obvious,
because Ooms fails to teach limitation [A] at issue in representative claim 1,
and similar limitations as recited in claims 13, 25, and 26?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 4-14) in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief.
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. The Examiner’s
analysis at pages 11-12 of the Answer is particularly compelling. We agree
with the Examiner that based on the calculations shown in the Answer (see
Ans. 12), Ooms discloses limitation [A] of claim 1, including a scaling
factor that is a variable integer as claimed.
Ooms’ column 3, lines 11-22 discloses that the scaling factor K is
dependent on the denominator magnitude (i.e., the denominator “y” as
Appeal 2010-003272
Application 10/484,163

6
recited in Appellant’s claim 1). In light of Ooms’ disclosures that (i) the
“scale factor K is computed in block 400, based on the magnitude of the
denominator D” (col. 3, ll. 12-13), and (ii) “the scale factor is derived from
the denominator magnitude” (col. 3, ll. 21-22), Appellant’s arguments to the
contrary (Reply Br. 7) are not persuasive. We note that our reading of the
Examiner’s reasoning at page 12 of the Answer is that either K or M (in the
alternative) is dependent on the denominator. In other words, the term
“K/M” found at line 4 of page 12 of the Answer is referring to K or M as
being the scaling factor, and does not represent the scaling factor K divided
by the constant M.
In view of the foregoing, Appellant’s arguments that Ooms fails to
disclose or suggest (i) limitation [A] of claim 1, and (ii) similar limitations
recited in claims 13, 25, and 26, are not persuasive. In light of the
Examiner’s findings and reasoning specifically set forth in the Answer (Ans.
11-12), we will sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1-11,
13-23, and 25-28.
Claims 12 and 24
Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner erred in determining
that the combination of Ooms and Official Notice teaches or suggests the
method and apparatus recited in claims 12 and 24, because Appellant does
not address the inclusion of Official Notice in the rejection other than to
assert that it fails to cure the deficiencies of Ooms (see App. Br. 37-39;
Reply Br. 11-12). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (requiring a statement in
the briefs as to each ground of rejection presented by Appellant for review);
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (stating that arguments not presented in the
briefs by Appellant will be refused consideration).
Appeal 2010-003272
Application 10/484,163

7

Summary
In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the inventions of claims 1-
28 are not patentably distinguishable from the teachings of Ooms or Ooms
and Official Notice.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-11, 13-23, and 25-
28 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
(2) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 12 and 24 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) Claims 1-28 are not patentable.
DECISION2
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11, 13-23, and 25-28 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.

2 We have decided the appeal before us. However, should there be further
prosecution of claims 1-28, the Examiner’s attention is directed to 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 and guidance from the Director and our reviewing courts. See, e.g.,
Memorandum from Andrew H. Hirshfeld, Acting Deputy Comm’r for the
Patent Examination Policy, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (to the
Technology Center Directors), New Interim Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Examination Instructions (August 24, 2009) available at
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/2009-08-
25_interim_101_instructions.pdf, pages 1-2; Subject Matter Eligibility of
Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010);
In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“A transitory,
propagating signal . . . is not a ‘process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter.’”).
Appeal 2010-003272
Application 10/484,163

8
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ke