Ex Parte Rustagi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 14, 201311400158 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/400,158 04/06/2006 Viresh Rustagi 14528.00316 1909 16378 7590 11/14/2013 BGL/Broadcom P.O. Box 10395 Chicago, IL 60610 EXAMINER TRUONG, THANHNGA B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2438 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/14/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte VIRESH RUSTAGI, CHRISTOPHER WILSON, and CHRISTOPHER BOROSS ___________ Appeal 2011-005825 Application 11/400,158 Technology Center 2400 ___________ Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-005825 Application 11/400,158 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-14, 16-20, 22-25, 27-31 and 33. Claims 4, 10, 15, 21, 26 and 32 are objected to by the Examiner, but otherwise allowable if written in independent form. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Introduction The disclosure relates to methods and systems for processing video data, including a method for generating indicators that operate to identify whether input multimedia data is secure. Abstract. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for processing data, the method comprising: receiving in a single mobile multimedia processor chip at least one indicator relating to how input multimedia data is processed; and generating within said single mobile multimedia processor chip, a further indicator based on said at least one indicator, which identifies whether output data generated from said input multimedia data by said single mobile multimedia processor chip is secure. References Brothers US 2002/0083178 A1 June 27, 2002 Ziv US 2004/0103288 A1 May 27, 2004 Vataja US 6,675,132 B2 Jan. 6, 2004 Cortopassi US 6,831,568 B1 Dec. 14, 2004 Hamalainen US 2007/0147616 A1 June 28, 2007 DeWitt US 2008/0244239 A1 Oct. 2, 2008 Appeal 2011-005825 Application 11/400,158 3 Rejections Claims 1, 12, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Hamalainen. Claims 2, 3, 13, 14, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hamalainen and DeWitt. Claims 5-7, 16-18, and 27-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hamalainen and Ziv. Claims 8, 19, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hamalainen and Cortopassi. Claims 9, 20, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hamalainen, DeWitt and Vataja. Claims 11, 22, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hamalainen and Brothers. ISSUE 1 Did the Examiner err in determining claims 1, 12, and 23 are anticipated by Hamalainen and, in particular, that the limitations “generating within said single mobile multimedia processor chip, a further indicator based on said at least one indicator, which identifies whether output data generated from said input multimedia data by said single mobile multimedia processor chip is secure” are disclosed, either expressly or inherently, by Hamalainen? ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 102(e): Claims 1, 12, and 23 Appellants assert that Hamalainen does not teach each and every limitation of claim 1. App. Br. 6-7. In particular, Appellants argue that the Appeal 2011-005825 Application 11/400,158 4 Examiner’s identification of the request for interruption as the at least one indicator and the cipher indicator as the further indicator does not anticipate claim 1 because the request for interruption “is not related in any way on how input multimedia data is processed.” App. Br. 6-10. Appellants also argue that the cipher indicator is not generated based on the request for interruption, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 2. In the Answer, the Examiner finds the at least one indicator of claim 1 is Hamalainen’s setting of a cipher indication data field (CIND) in response to a command message from the mobile communication network. Ans. 9; Hamalainen, [0022]. The Examiner finds the further indicator is an interruption signal, generated based on the value contained in the CIND, that causes a cipher mode indicator to be displayed on a screen indicating the input data is secure. Ans. 9-10; Hamalainen, [0023]. We agree with the Examiner’s identification of the CIND as the at least one indicator and the interruption signal as the further indicator. Appellants’ argument that the request for interruption cannot be the at least one indicator does not address the Examiner’s finding that the CIND is the at least one indicator. Ans. 9. In addition, we agree with the Examiner that the cipher mode command message from the mobile communications network could also be identified as the at least one indicator and the CIND data field indicator identified as the further indicator. Ans. 9-10, 13-14; Hamalainen, [0022]-[0023]. Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Hamalainen discloses the invention as recited in claims 1, 12, and 23. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 12, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for anticipation by Hamalainen. Appeal 2011-005825 Application 11/400,158 5 ISSUE 2 Did the Examiner err in determining that the claimed invention would have been obvious over the combination of Hamalainen and DeWitt (claims 2, 3, 13, 14, 24, and 25); Hamalainen and Ziv (claims 5-7, 16-18, and 27- 29); Hamalainen and Cortopassi (claims 8, 19, and 30); Hamalainen, DeWitt, and Vataja (claims 9, 20, and 31); or Hamalainen and Brothers (11, 22, and 33)? 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 2, 13, and 24 Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Hamalainen and DeWitt because the references do not teach the specific limitations as recited in the claims. App. Br. 14-19. Specifically, Appellants contend neither Hamalainen nor DeWitt teaches a first indicator identifying whether an instruction cache is used; a second indicator identifying whether an interrupt is used; or a third indicator which specifies a program counter value associated with the multimedia data. App. Br. 14-19; Reply Br. 4-5. The Examiner found that each limitation of claims 2, 13, and 24 is taught by the combination of Hamalainen and DeWitt. Ans. 5, 11. We agree. In particular, DeWitt teaches: an instruction cache and receiving an instruction from the instruction cache; an interrupt unit and receiving an interrupt indicator, or signal, in the interrupt unit; and a performance monitor and performance monitor value for counting on a per instruction basis in a processor. See Ans. 5; DeWitt, [0093], [0097-0098], [0112], [0113], [0115]. While Appellants point to some differences between the language of DeWitt and claim 2, in light of the broad claim language, Appellants do not provide sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us that the Examiner erred in finding DeWitt and Hamalainen in combination teach all the Appeal 2011-005825 Application 11/400,158 6 limitations of the claims. Ans. 5, 10-11. In particular, Appellants do not sufficiently explain why the instruction from the instruction cache, the interrupt signal, and the performance monitor value do not satisfy the indicator limitations of the claims. Appellants also argue that, even if DeWitt teaches the elements recited by the Examiner, there is no articulated reasoning to support the finding of obviousness. App. Br. 13-14. The Examiner found one of skill in the art would look to incorporate DeWitt’s teaching of using indicators to monitor and examine resource consumption into Hamalainen’s system “to effectively process data with the performance indicators that are associated with instructions or memory locations, counting of events associated with execution of those instructions or events associated with accesses to those memory locations.” Ans. 5; 10. We find the Examiner has set forth a reasonable rationale as to why one of skill in the art would combine Hamalainen and DeWitt. Appellants have provided insufficient evidence or argument rebutting the Examiner’s rationale to persuade us the Examiner erred. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 3, 14, and 25 Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Hamalainen and DeWitt for the same reasons as asserted for claims 1, 2, 12, 13, 23, and 24. App. Br. 19. Having found claims 1, 12, and 23 anticipated by Hamalainen and claims 2, 13, and 24 obvious in view of Hamalainen and DeWitt, and having been presented with no additional arguments as to why the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 14, and 25 was erroneous, we are not persuaded the Appeal 2011-005825 Application 11/400,158 7 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3, 14, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hamalainen and DeWitt. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 5, 16, and 27 Appellants contend the combination of Hamalainen and Ziv does not teach or suggest “storing at least a portion of said output data in a first portion of a memory on said single mobile multimedia processor chip, if said output data … is secure [as indicated by said further indicator].” App. Br. 21; Reply Br. 6. Appellants argue further that the Examiner has not set forth “articulated reasoning with some rationale (sic) underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” App. Br. 21; Reply Br. 5. The Examiner relies on Ziv for teaching “storing at least a portion of the output data in a first portion of a memory on the processor chip….” Ans. 11-12. According to the Examiner, if the data is secure, as in the Hamalainen system when the cipher mode is on, then the secure data would be stored in a portion of memory. Id.; Ziv, [0030] (storing data in a secure data area if it is secure). We do not find error in the Examiner’s reasoning or citation to the references, and Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or argument addressing the combination of Hamalainen and Ziv as a whole to persuade us the Examiner erred in these findings. Finally, with respect to Appellants’ assertion that the Examiner’s rejection lacks “articulated reasoning” with some rational underpinning “to support the legal conclusion of obviousness,” the Examiner found Ziv relates “to portable storage devices for securely storing data” and that it would be proper to combine Ziv with Hamalainen to employ the microprocessor for securing stored data. App. Br. 21; see also Ans. 11. We find the Examiner Appeal 2011-005825 Application 11/400,158 8 has provided a reasonable rationale as to why one with ordinary skill in the art would have combined Hamalainen and Ziv. Appellants have provided insufficient evidence or argument rebutting the Examiner’s rationale to persuade us the Examiner erred. Instead, Appellants repeat their arguments from the Appeal Brief. See Reply Br. 5. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 6, 17, and 28 Appellants assert that claims 6, 17, and 28 are not obvious in light of Hamalainen and Ziv because, “although Ziv allows the user to set the size of the secure memory area, it does not disclose or suggest that the size is set in response to a further indicator, which identifies whether said data is secure.” App. Br. 23; Reply Br. 7. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. First, claims 6, 17, and 28 do not recite that the size of the secure memory area is “set in response to a further indicator” and we decline to read such a limitation into claims 6, 17, and 28. While claim 1 recites a further indicator which identifies whether the data is secure, claims 6, 17, and 28 do not require the size value be set in response to this further indicator. Second, we agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner’s findings that Hamalainen and Ziv, as combined by the Examiner, teach the disputed limitations recited in claims 6, 17, and 28. In particular, as found by the Examiner, Hamalainen teaches the receipt and processing of secure data and Ziv teaches setting the size value of a secure portion of memory if there is secure data to store. Ans. 12; Ziv, [0030]. Appeal 2011-005825 Application 11/400,158 9 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 7, 18, and 29 Appellants assert that claims 7, 18, and 29 are not obvious in light of Hamalainen and Ziv because Ziv does not disclose or suggest “that the size is set in response to a further indicator, which identifies whether said data is secure.” App. Br. 23; Reply Br. 8. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. As explained above, we decline to read into the claims a limitation that the size is set in response to a further indicator. Further, we agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner’s findings that Hamalainen and Ziv, as combined, teach the disputed claim limitations. Ziv teaches setting a size value for secure memory if there is secure data to store and, once this size value is set, the size of the secure memory area is based on the stored size value. See, e.g., Ans. 12-13; Ziv, [0030]. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 8, 19, and 30 Appellants argue that Cortopassi does not teach the recited claim limitations because “Cortopassi merely discloses a portable computer system that can be set to generate a visual alert in lieu of an audio alert” and is “simply is not concerned with data security.” App. Br. 26; Reply Br. 9. Appellants also argue that the Examiner failed to provide “articulated reasoning” with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness “in the detailed manner described in KSR.” App. Br. 24. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Hamalainen and Cortopassi teaches the disputed claim limitations. As found by the Examiner, Cortopassi teaches disabling the generation of an indicator based on a different indicator. In combination with Hamalainen, Appeal 2011-005825 Application 11/400,158 10 each of the elements of claim 8 is taught in the recited art. Moreover, although not relied upon in affirming this rejection, we note that Hamalainen teaches disabling the CIND data field, and the display of the cipher indicator on the mobile station, when a signal is received from the mobile communication network indicating the cipher mode has changed. See, e.g., Hamalainen, [0022]-[0023], [0030]-[0031]. With respect to Appellants’ assertion that the Examiner’s rejection lacks a rational underpinning, we find the Examiner has provided a reasonable rationale as to why one with ordinary skill in the art would combine Cortopassi and Hamalainen. Appellants have provided insufficient evidence or argument addressing this proposed rationale to persuade us the Examiner erred. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 9, 20, and 31 According to the Examiner, “Vataja is relied on for the teaching of storing a reference program counter value” within a processor chip, wherein the processor compares the measured values with stored reference values and, based on this comparison, a further notice is generated. Ans. 15. The Examiner found “Vataja is directed to monitoring the operation of an object by monitoring several indicators in connection with the object” and it is proper to combine Hamalainen, DeWitt, and Vataja “to effectively operate and maintain an object by comparing the examined data given by the indicators with a predetermined threshold or a reference” to further generate a notice. Ans. 14 Appellants argue that Vataja does not mention a program counter and the Examiner has not explained how Vataja discloses or suggests “storing a Appeal 2011-005825 Application 11/400,158 11 reference program counter value within said single mobile multimedia process chip, wherein said reference program counter value is used for said generation of said further indicator.” App. Br. 29. Appellants further argue that the Examiner fails to provide “articulated reasoning” to support the legal conclusion of obviousness and “appears to be proposing the combination based solely on improper hindsight.” App. Br. 27. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner cites DeWitt for counting events using a program counter value and combines Vataja for the teaching of generating a further action based on the value of the program counter. Ans. 14-15. The Examiner has provided rational reasoning as to why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of Hamalainen, DeWitt, and Vataja and Appellants have provided insufficient argument or evidence addressing this rationale to persuade us the Examiner erred. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 11, 22, and 33 The Examiner found Brothers teaches “tracking the number of times a resource is accessed by a user” and the combination of Hamalainen and Brothers discloses the limitations of claim 11. The Examiner further found that it is “proper to combine Brothers with Hamalainen to securely protect data by enciphering them as taught by Hamalainen and by tracking them as disclosed by Brothers.” Ans. 15. Appellants argue that the Examiner failed to provide articulated reasoning for the combination of Hamalainen and Brothers and “appears to be proposing the combination based solely on improper hindsight.” App. Br. 30-31. Appeal 2011-005825 Application 11/400,158 12 We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner has presented rational reasoning as to why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of Hamalainen and Brothers and Appellants have provided insufficient argument or evidence addressing the Examiner’s rationale to persuade us the Examiner erred. Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5-7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16-22, 24, 25, and 27-33 as obvious over the combination of Hamalainen and DeWitt (claims 2, 3, 13, 14, 24, and 25); Hamalainen and Ziv (claims 5-7, 16-18, and 27-29); Hamalainen and Cortopassi (claims 8, 19, and 30); Hamalainen, DeWitt and Vataja (claims 9, 20, and 31); and Hamalainen and Brothers (11, 22, and 33). DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 12, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Hamalainen is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 13, 14, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hamalainen and DeWitt is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 5-7, 16-18, and 27-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hamalainen and Ziv is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 19, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hamalainen and Cortopassi is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 20, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hamalainen, DeWitt and Vataja is affirmed. Appeal 2011-005825 Application 11/400,158 13 The Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 22, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hamalainen and Brothers is affirmed. 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 kis Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation