Ex Parte Rustagi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 14, 2013

11400158 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2013)

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