Ex Parte Minagawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 9, 2016

13022800 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/022,800 02/08/2011 23494 7590 06/13/2016 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED P 0 BOX 655474, MIS 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Yusuke Minagawa 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. TI-65763 7413 EXAMINER BELA!, NAOD W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2481 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/13/2016 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): uspto@ti.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YUSUKE MINAGA WA and SATORU YAMAUCHI Appeal2014-008721 Application 13/022,800 Technology Center 2400 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EV ANS, and DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. Per Curiam. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 7-9, 14, and 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). Claims 2---6 and 10-13 have been canceled. Claims App. We REVERSE. 1 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed December 18, 2013 ("App. Br."); Appellants' Reply Brief filed July 9, 2014 ("Reply Br."); and Examiner's Answer mailed May 9, 2014 ("Ans."). 2 Appellants identify Texas Instruments Incorporated as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal2014-008721 Application 13/022,800 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims on Appeal Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced below (with disputed limitations in italics): 1. A method for transcoding a data stream, the method compnsmg: receiving the data stream, wherein the data stream contains periodic time reference values referenced to a first reference clock; processing the received data stream to form transcoded output data stream; adjusting at least one of the periodic time reference values in the transcoded output data stream by resetting a counter upon each reaching of a time for outputting an output packet of the transcoded output data stream, counting clock pulses of the first reference clock in the counter, and adding a count value of the counter to a current received data stream periodic reference value upon each rising edge of a second reference clock having a frequency lower than the first reference clock to form an adjusted periodic time reference value; and transmitting the output data stream in synchronism with the second reference clock, wherein the output data stream contains the adjusted periodic time reference value. App. Br. 17 (Claims Appendix). N emiroff et al. ("N emiroff') Seong et al. ("Seong") References US 6, 724,825 Bl US 2005/0190872 Al 2 Apr. 20, 2004 Sept. 1, 2005 Appeal2014-008721 Application 13/022,800 Maes et al. ("Maes") N oronha, JR. ("N oronha") Sekimoto et al. ("Sekimoto") US 2006/0271365 Al Nov. 30, 2006 US 2010/0008385 Al Jan. 14,2010 US 2010/0328724 Al Dec. 30, 2010 Examiner's Rejections Claims 1, 7, 9, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Seong, Noronha, and Nemiroff. Ans. 2---6. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Seong, Noronha, Nemiroff, and Sekimoto. Ans. 6-7. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Seong, Noronha, Nemiroff, and Maes. Ans. 7-8. ANALYSIS Appellants argue Seong does not teach "adding a count value of the counter to a current received data stream periodic reference value," as recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 15. App. Br. 11. Specifically, Appellants contend adder 91 of Seong adds addends that are not the same or similar to the quantities claimed. App. Br. 11 (citing Seong i-f 80). Appellants note one addend input to adder 91 of Seong is STC 1 which tracks the program clock reference PCRI. App. Br. 12 (citing Seong Fig. 5, i-f 77). Appellants further note that Seong teaches the other addend input to the adder is the total delay count output from the total delay calculator. App. Br. 12 (citing Seong Fig. 5, i-f 79). Appellants assert the total delay calculator neither acts as a counter nor stores counts from a counter. Id.; see also Reply Br. 3--4. 3 Appeal2014-008721 Application 13/022,800 The Examiner finds clock counter 13 in Seong teaches the claimed "counting clock pulses of the first reference clock in the counter." Ans. 4 (citing Seong i-f 78). However, the Examiner then finds adder 91 of Seong teaches the claimed "adding a count value of the counter to a current received data stream periodic reference value" by adding the total delay count and the PCRl. Ans. 10 (citing Seong Fig. 5). The Examiner explains "the inputs to the adder 91 are substantially the same quantities as the claimed quantities." Ans. 10. However, as explained above, the Examiner relies on clock counter 13 for the count value, and the value output from clock counter 13 is not an input to adder 91. The Examiner has not adequately explained how the total delay count teaches the claimed "count value," which is output from total delay calculator 80. As Appellants note, Seong teaches "the total delay calculator 80 calculates a total time delay time 'by summing up buffer delay and look-ahead delay.'" Reply Br. 3 (quoting Seong Fig. 5, i-f 79). We are persuaded the Examiner has not demonstrated that the clock counter in Seong is connected to the buffer delay and look-ahead delay combined by the total delay calculator. Reply Br. 3--4; Seong i-fi-178-79. As such, we are constrained by the record before us not to sustain the rejections of claims 1, 9, and 15, as well as the rejections of claims 7 and 8, which depend from claim 1, and claim 14, which depends from claim 9, under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 7-9, 14, and 15. 4 Appeal2014-008721 Application 13/022,800 REVERSED 5