Ex Parte Choudur et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 4, 2016

12461844 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/461,844 08/26/2009 Lakshminarayn Choudur
56436 7590 02/08/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82258460 4503
EXAMINER
VO,CECILEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LAKSHMINARA YN CHOUDUR, PRAM OD SINGH,
UMESHW AR DAY AL, and CHET AN KUMAR GUPTA
Appeal2014-000894
Application 12/461,844
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JESSICA C. KAISER, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-20, all of the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, L.P. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal2014-000894
Application 12/461,844
EXEMPLARY CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 12 are illustrative of the invention and are reproduced
below:
1. A system including hardware that comprises:
a data input module that supplies a data input; and
a wavelet transformation and compression module
coupled to the data input module, wherein the wavelet
transformation and compression module receives a
representation of the input data, the wavelet transformation and
compression module comprising:
an input module comprising a wavelet basis function,
a wavelet coefficient generator that computes a plurality
of wavelet coefficients based on the wavelet basis function and
the representation of the input data,
a ranking module that orders the plurality of wavelet
coefficients,
a coefficient multiplier that computes an energy value for
each wavelet coefficient,
an adder that iteratively computes cumulative energy as a
function of the number of coefficients, and
a comparator that compares total energy of the data input
to the iterative, cumulative energy and selects a number of
coefficients whose cumulative energy is substantially invariant
with additional coefficients, wherein the selected number of
coefficients results in compression of the data input.
12. A method, implemented on a suitably programmed
device, for compressing a dataset using energy-based wavelet
thresholding, comprising the steps of:
(a) receiving a representation of an original data set;
(b) determining an operation to be performed on the
received original data set;
2
Appeal2014-000894
Application 12/461,844
( c) receiving a wavelet basis function to apply to the
original data set;
( d) using the received wavelet basis function,
transforming the original data set X into a set of coefficients;
( e) ordering the set of coefficients into an ordered set;
(f) squaring each of coefficient of the ordered set;
(g) computing the total energy of the ordered set;
(h) performing iterative, cumulative addition of the
squared components of the ordered set;
(i) subtracting the iteratively and cumulatively added
squared components ordered set from the total energy until a
point of near-invariant differences is reached, wherein a number
of squared coefficients cumulatively added comprises a
compression value; and
U) deleting remaining coefficients in order to produce a
compressed dataset set.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-7, 9-12, 14, 15, and 17-19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zaroubi (US 6,094,050;
issued July 25, 2000) and Sasaki (US 5,530,478; issued June 25, 1996).
(Final Act. 2-12.)
The Examiner has rejected claims 8, 13, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zaroubi and Sasaki in combination with
additional references. (Final Act. 13-15.)
3
Appeal2014-000894
Application 12/461,844
ISSUES
The dispositive issues presented by Appellants' arguments are:
Did the Examiner err in finding Sasaki teaches or suggests the
"multiplier," "adder," and "comparator" recited in claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding Zaroubi teaches or suggests
"performing iterative, cumulative addition of the squared components of the
ordered set," as recited in claim 12?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-11, 19, and 20
Appellants argue Sasaki does not teach or suggest: "a coefficient
multiplier that computes an energy value for each wavelet coefficient," "an
adder that iteratively computes cumulative energy as a function of the
number of coefficients," and "a comparator that compares total energy of the
data input to the iterative, cumulative energy," as recited in claim 1. (App.
Br. 17-19.) We agree with Appellants.
The Examiner finds Sasaki teaches these limitations. (Final Act. 4
(citing Sasaki 5:14--29); Ans. 17-19.) While Sasaki teaches adders,
multipliers, and a comparator, we agree with Appellants that those
components in Sasaki do not perform the functions recited in claim 1. For
example, in Sasaki, comparator 37 extracts two calculated total bit counts
NB1 and NB2 that are then input to the multipliers 38 and 39. (See Sasaki
5:14--20.) In claim 1, in contrast, the output of the coefficient multiplier is
an input to the comparator (i.e., the coefficient multiplier computes an
energy value which is used by the adder to compute a cumulative energy
4
Appeal2014-000894
Application 12/461,844
which is then one of the values compared in the comparator). Because
Appellants have shown at least one reversible error in the Examiner's
finding, we agree with Appellants the Examiner errs in finding Sasaki
teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claim 1.
The Examiner relies on the same portion of Sasaki to teach "compares
the difference value to an approximately maximal cumulative energy
threshold to determine a number of coefficients to retain," as recited in claim
19. (Final Act. 12 (citing Sasaki 5: 14--19); Ans. 22-23.) We agree with
Appellants (App. Br. 23-24) that the Examiner errs in this finding for the
same reasons discussed above for claim 1.
For the reasons discussed above, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner's decision to reject independent claims 1 and 19 and
dependent claims 2-7 and 9-11. The additional references as applied by the
Examiner in § 103 rejections of dependent claims 8 and 20 do not cure the
deficiencies discussed supra. Accordingly, we also reverse the Examiner's
decision to reject those claims.
Claims 12-18
Appellants argue Zaroubi does not teach or suggest "performing
iterative, cumulative addition of the squared components of the ordered set,"
as recited in claim 12. (App. Br. 20.) We agree with Appellants.
The Examiner finds Zaroubi teaches this step. (Final Act. 8 (citing
Zaroubi 3:2-10); Ans. 20 (citing same).) The cited portion of Zaroubi
relates to noise filtering of the real and imaginary parts of an MRI image,
and provides an equation for taking the absolute value of both parts of a
complex data point. (Zaroubi 3:2-10.) Although that equation includes
5
Appeal2014-000894
Application 12/461,844
squared components, Zaroubi does not teach or suggest the equation
"performs iterative, cumulative addition of the squared components of the
ordered set" of coefficients into which the original data set X was
transformed using a wavelet basis function, as recited in claim 12. Thus, we
agree with Appellants the Examiner errs in finding Zaroubi teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation of claim 12.
For the reasons discussed above, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner's decision to reject independent claim 12 and
dependent claims 14, 15, 17, and 18. The additional references as applied by
the Examiner in § 103 rejections of dependent claims 13 and 16 do not cure
the deficiencies discussed supra. Accordingly, we also reverse the
Examiner's decision to reject those claims.
DECISION2
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
Jagr
2 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner is invited to evaluate the
claims for compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 in view of
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), and the
"July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility," 80 Fed. Reg. 45429 (July
30, 2015).
6