Ex Parte Jia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 29, 2016

12635550 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/635,550 12/10/2009 121312 7590 03/03/2016 Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation 3000 K Street N.W Suite 600 Washington, DC 20007-5109 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Yunwei Jia 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. 106861-0312 9550 EXAMINER TRAN, TRANGU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2422 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/03/2016 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): ipdocketing@foley.com cmckenna@foley.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YUNWEI JIA and PAUL WIERCIENSKI Appeal2014-003105 Application 12/635,550 Technology Center 2400 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JAMES R. HUGHES and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. Invention The claimed invention on appeal is directed to "parallel processing for providing high resolution frames from low resolution frames." (Spec. i-f 4). Appeal2014-003105 Application 12/635,550 Illustrative Claim 1. A system for receiving lower resolution frames and generating higher resolution frames, said system comprising: [L 1] an ups amp ling circuit that generates an ups amp led frame from a particular lower resolution frame; a first circuit that maps blocks from lower resolution frames that are proximate to the particular lower resolution frame to the particular lower resolution frame; and [L2] a second circuit that updates the ups amp led frame with two or more blocks from at least one of the lower resolution frames that are proximate to the particular lower resolution frame. (Emphasis added regarding the contested limitations, labeled as "L 1" and "L2"). Rejection Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Beric et al (US 2008/0204602 Al; published August 28; 2008). Contentions Regarding the anticipation rejection of claim 1, Appellants contest the Examiner's rejection of limitation L2. (App. Br. 9). Appellants particularly contend, inter alia: Eerie is entirely silent, however, with regard to the motion estimator 106 comprising a circuit that updates an up sampled frame. Specifically, Eerie does not describe that the motion estimator 106 updates an upsampled frame generated by the "picture-rate up- conversion applications," as suggested in the Office Action and Advisory Action. In contrast, Eerie merely describes at paragraph [0003] that video-processing devices employing motion estimation are used in picture-rate up-conversion applications, without describing that the motion estimator 106 (or any other element) updates an upsampled frame "with two or more blocks from at least one of the 2 Appeal2014-003105 Application 12/635,550 lower resolution frames that are proximate to the particular lower resolution frame," as defined by claim 1. The Examiner disagrees (Ans. 6-7): As discussed in the previous office actions, Beric discloses in paragraph #0003 that the motion estimation is used in picture-rate up- conversion applications, in page 5, paragraph #0096 that "During operation, two consecutive images stored in memory sections 102.1 and 102.2 of main memory 102 are used to determine motion vectors for each pixel block of a currently processed image. For illustration purposes, it is assumed that the memory section 102.2 contains a currently processed image and memory section 102.1 contains an image immediately preceding that stored in section 102.2 in an image sequence", and in paragraph #0100 that" video [sic] processing device 100 is a motion estimation device, however, motion estimation is used in various video processing tasks such as motion compensated filtering for noise reduction, motion compensated prediction for coding, and motion compensated interpolation for video format conversion ... ". From these passages, it is clear that the motion estimation is used in picture-rate up- conversion applications via interpolation and that the motion estimation is used both pixel blocks of the currently processed image and image immediately preceding the currently processed image. Since the motion estimation is used [in] both pixel blocks of the currently processed image and [the] image immediately preceding the currently processed image, the motion estimation of Beric et al[.] would update the picture-rate up-conversion applications. Thus, the motion estimation of Beric et al[.] is anticipated the claimed "a second circuit that updates an upsampled frame with two or more blocks from at least one lower resolution frame". ISSUE Issue: Under Â§ 102, did the Examiner err by finding Beric expressly or inherently discloses the contested limitations: [L 1] an ups amp ling circuit that generates an ups amp led frame from a particular lower resolution frame; and 3 Appeal2014-003105 Application 12/635,550 [L2] a second circuit that updates the upsampledframe with two or more blocks from at least one of the lower resolution frames that are proximate to the particular lower resolution frame[,] within the meaning of claim 1? (Emphasis added). ANALYSIS We focus our analysis on contested limitation L2, and need not reach contested limitation L 1 to decide this appeal. The Examiner responds to Appellants' contentions regarding limitation L2, and refers generally to paragraphs [0003], [0096], and [0100] of Beric. The Examiner finds: "[s]ince the motion estimation is used [in] both pixel blocks of the currently processed image and [the] image immediately preceding the currently processed image, the motion estimation of Beric et al[.] would update the picture-rate up-conversion applications." (Ans. 7). We note paragraph 3 of Beric discloses: [0003] Video-processing devices employing ME [Motion Estimation] are used in television devices, for instance for De-interlacing and picture-rate up-conversion applications. ME is also used for video data encoding. However, the Examiner provides no direct mapping to an express description in Beric regarding the contested L2 limitation: a second circuit that updates the upsampled frame with two or more blocks from at least one of the lower resolution frames that are proximate to the particular lower resolution frame .... (Claim 1 ). Beric' s paragraph 96 (Fig. 1) discloses "two consecutive images stored in memory sections 102 .1 and 102 .2 of main memory 102 [that] are 4 Appeal2014-003105 Application 12/635,550 used to determine motion vectors for each pixel block of a currently processed image." However, we find paragraph 96 does not describe a circuit with the contested L2 limitation. We also find the description in Beric (at i-f l 00) does not provide the missing contested claimed features. Nor does the Examiner provide any supporting factual evidence or technical reasoning explaining how limitation L2 is inherently disclosed by Beric. '"In relying upon the theory of inherencyi the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or tec1rnica1 reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the aHeged!y inherent characteristic necessarify nows from the teachings of the applied prior art~~ Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (BPAI 1990) (emphasis added). Although motion estimation may be used as input to picture-rate up- conversion applications, as suggested by Examiner (Ans. 7, Beric i-f3), there is no evidence provided that contested limitation L2 necessarily flows from the relied-upon features of Beric's disclosure. 1 We additionally find the Examiner's statement of rejection (Ans. 2-3) does not clearly map each element of claim 1 (including at least contested limitations LI and L2) to the corresponding specific features found in Beric. We reproduce the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 in its entirety: In considering claim 1, Beric et al [.] discloses all the claimed subject matter, note 1) the claimed an upsampling circuit that generates an upsampled frame from a particular lower resolution frame is met by the video processing device 100 (Fig. 1, page 1, paragraph #0010 to 1 "Inherency ... may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient." In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, (Fed. Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted). 5 Appeal2014-003105 Application 12/635,550 page 2, paragraph #0026), 2) the claimed a first circuit that maps blocks from lower resolution frames that are proximate to the particular lower resolution frame to the particular lower resolution frame is met by the motion estimator (Figs. 1-2, page 2, paragraph #0029 to paragraph #0034 and page 5, paragraph #0092 to page 7, paragraph #0109), and 3) the claimed a second circuit that updates the upsampled frame with two or more blocks from at least one of the lower resolution frames that are proximate to the particular lower resolution frame is met by updating the motion vector candidate (Figs. 1-2, page 6, paragraph #0101 to page 7, paragraph #0118). Final Act. 4. In reviewing the statement of rejection (id.), Appellants' arguments in the Brief (7-9), and the Examiner's responsive arguments (Ans. 5-7), we find the Examiner paints with a broad brush in making the anticipation rejection. In addressing contested limitation L2, the Examiner refers to "(Figs. 1-2, page 6, paragraph #0101 to page 7, paragraph #0118)" ofBeric. (Final Act. 4). Without further specificity, it is unclear what the Examiner is relying on for an express or inherent description of the contested limitations. We decline to make speculative assumptions regarding the Examiner's intended mapping regarding at least contested limitation L2 of claim 1. We note that the Board is a reviewing body and not a place of initial examination. The PTO bears the initial burden of showing a prima facie case. In re Sullivan, 498 F.3d 1345, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The rigorous requirements of anticipation require a clear mapping of each claim limitation to the corresponding feature found in the reference, which the Examiner must identify with particularity. Only when a prima facie case is established by the Examiner, does the burden then shift to the Applicants to come forward with evidence and/or 6 Appeal2014-003105 Application 12/635,550 argument supporting patentability. In re Glaug, 283 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The prima facie burden has not been met and the rejection does not adhere to the minimal requirements of 35 U.S.C. Â§ 132 "when a rejection is so uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds for rejection." Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990). This reasoning is applicable here. For essentially the same reasons articulated by Appellants (App. Br. 9), as discussed above, we agree the Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of anticipation. Because the Examiner has not construed and mapped at least contested limitation L2 to the corresponding features in Beric with particularity, we find the Examiner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Beric anticipates at least contested limitation L2, as recited in claim 1. Remaining independent claims 9 and 1 7 each recite contested limitation L2 in commensurate form. Therefore, for the aforementioned reasons, we reverse the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 over Beric. Because we have reversed the rejection of each independent claim on appeal, we also reverse the anticipation rejection of each associated dependent claim. Conclusion On this record, and by a preponderance of the evidence, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20 underÂ§ 102(b), for at least the reasons argued on page 9 of the Brief, as further discussed above. 7 Appeal2014-003105 Application 12/635,550 DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 underÂ§ 102(b). REVERSED 8