Ex Parte Yang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 28, 2016

13162265 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/162,265 06/16/2011 Kai Yang 93253 7590 05/02/2016 Garlick & Markison (VIXS) P.O. Box 160727 Austin, TX 78716-0727 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. VIXS193US 7132 EXAMINER BELA!, NAOD W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2481 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/02/2016 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): MMurdock@texaspatents.com ghmptocor@texaspatents.com bpierotti@texaspatents.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KAI YANG, DONG LIU, EDWARD HONG, and HONGRIWANG Appeal2014-006736 Application 13/162,265 Technology Center 2400 Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. We have reviewed Appellants' contentions in the Brief, the Examiner's rejection, the Examiner's response to Appellants' contentions, and the evidence of record. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established the combination of Wu (US 2012/0163470 Al) and Y oshimatsu (US 2010/00145 82 A 1) teaches or suggests "the matrix input Appeal2014-006736 Application 13/162,265 configuration data indicates the dimensionality of the first input data and the second input data" ("matrix" limitation), as recited in independent claims 1 and 8. The Examiner finds Y oshimatsu teaches a matrix multiplier that multiplies two inputs (coefficient data and multiplier Ml). Ans. 8 (citing Yoshimatsu i-f 37; Fig. 1). The Examiner further finds Wu teaches its decoder can select between a wide variety of available inverse frequency transforms. Ans. 9 (citing Wu i-fi-115, 97, 105, 112). Additionally, the Examiner finds it is well known in the art that matrix configuration data includes the dimensionality of both inputs. 1 Ans. 9. We agree with Appellants (App. Br. 5---6) that the dimensions described in Wu are for an inverse transform, not the dimensionality of two inputs to a matrix multiplier. See Wu i-fi-115, 97. We also agree with Appellants (App. Br. 7) that the cited sections of Y oshimatsu describe the matrix multiplier is configured to control which inputs are multiplied together and do not describe matrix configuration data that indicates the dimensionality of the two inputs that are multiplied together. See Y oshimatsu i-f 3 7. We also agree with Appellants that the Examiner improperly relies on official notice that matrix configuration data includes the dimensionality of the inputs. Reply Br. 4--5. Official notice may only be taken of facts beyond the record which are capable of such instant and unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute. In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091 (CCPA 1970). Typically, such official notice is used to supplement or clarify the teaching of a reference or to justify a particular inference to be drawn from a reference. Id. at 1092. The 1 The Examiner's official notice of this fact is newly made in the Answer. 2 Appeal2014-006736 Application 13/162,265 Examiner's finding that it is well known for matrix configuration data to indicate the dimensionality of its two inputs goes beyond supplementing the references and improperly takes official notice of facts which comprise the principle evidence upon which the rejection is based. See id. ("[ w ]e know of no case in which facts judicially noticed comprised the principal evidence upon which a rejection was based."). Moreover, although the Examiner takes official notice that encoding information (partition size and block/macro block size) is routinely communicated to a decoder, the Examiner does not sufficiently explain why that teaches or suggests matrix configuration data that includes the dimensionality of the inputs. See Ans. 9. For the reasons stated above, we determine the Examiner has not established the combination of Wu and Y oshimatsu teaches or suggests the "matrix" limitation. The Examiner does not use the additional reference of record, Xu (US 2012/0307892 Al), to teach or suggest the "matrix" limitation. Therefore, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 8, and their dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-14. REVERSED 3