Ex Parte Aggarwal et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 16, 201410874634 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/874,634 06/23/2004 Gaurav Aggarwal 106861-0419 7853 121312 7590 09/16/2014 Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation 3000 K Street N.W, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20007-5109 EXAMINER FINDLEY, CHRISTOPHER G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2482 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/16/2014 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 GAURAV AGGARWAL, M. K. SUBRAMANIAN, SANDEEP BHATIA, SANTOSH SAVEKAR, and K. SHIVAPIRAKASAN ___________ Appeal 2012-004794 Application 10/874,634 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-004794 Application 10/874,634 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1–8, 18–20, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We affirm. Introduction The invention is directed to “systems and methods for pause and freeze functions for digital video streams.” Abstract. Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized) 1. A method for displaying video data, said method comprising: displaying a particular picture for a plurality of video display periods, wherein the particular picture is originally encoded as either a B picture or a P picture; displaying a next picture at the video display period immediately following the plurality of video display periods, the next picture immediately following the particular picture in a display order; and loading a system clock reference with a time stamp associated with the next picture when displaying the next picture. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 8, 18–20, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Tsukagoshi (US Patent Number 6,636,563 B2; issued October 21, 2003). Answer 5–6. Claims 2 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsukagoshi. Answer 6–7. Appeal 2012-004794 Application 10/874,634 3 ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 20, 2011), the Answer (mailed October 28, 2011) and the Reply Brief (filed December 23, 2011) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellants contend Tsukagoshi does not anticipate claims 1 and 5 because Tsukagoshi’s Figure 7 discloses frame B12 is displayed after frame B2. Appeal Brief 6. Appellants further contend “that frame B12 is not ‘the next picture immediately following the particular picture in a display order’” and “[i]t can be seen from Tsukagoshi that at least frames P1, B3, B4, P2, P4 and P5 are in between B2 and B12.” Id. The Examiner finds Tsukagoshi teaches “displaying a next picture” because “Upon cancellation of the ‘freeze’ operation, the next picture contained in the buffer is displayed, as shown in Fig. 7.” Answer 7. Appellants “offer[ed] the following definition on the record, that ‘the next picture immediately following the particular picture in a display order’, is picture . . . in the native capture order.” Appeal Brief 6. However, Appellants do not indicate where in the Specification there is support for the narrow interpretation or definition for the display order terminology Appellants offered. Consequently, we find the Examiner’s interpretation of claim 1’s “displaying a next picture” limitation to be reasonable in light of Appeal 2012-004794 Application 10/874,634 4 the absence of a support for Appellants’ definition in the Specification.1 Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1. Appellants argue that claim 5’s limitation “wherein the particular picture is originally encoded as data dependent on at least one picture” is not taught by Tsukagoshi for the reasons described with respect to claim 1. Appeal Brief 7. The Examiner finds: The MPEG video coding scheme used by Tsukagoshi encodes each picture or frame as one of an I-picture, P-picture, or B- picture, wherein an I-picture is encoded as an independent picture, a P-picture (or Predicted picture) is encoded by referencing data that has already been coded in either an I- picture or another P-picture, and a B-picture (or Bidirecional [sic] picture) is encoded by referencing a combination of two I- and/or P-pictures. Therefore, the cited B frame (or picture) B2 is dependent on two other pictures, and accordingly meets the claim limitation. By extension, the B frame B2 also meets the broader claim limitation, “wherein the particular picture is originally encoded as data dependent on at least one picture,” recited in claim 5. Answer 8. 1 During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations omitted). Appeal 2012-004794 Application 10/874,634 5 We agree with the Examiner’s findings and sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 5. Appellants further contend claims 28 and 29 recite “wherein the next picture . . . for display in a normal playback order” and “Clearly, the foregoing are not taught by Tsukagoshi, including Figure 7, frame B12.” Appeal Brief 7. However, Appellants do not present arguments indicating why Tsukagoshi does not anticipate the claims and therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 28 and 29 for the reasons articulated above.2 We also sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of dependent claims 3, 4, 7, 8, and 18–20, not separately argued, as well as the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2 and 6 not separately argued. DECISION The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 7, 8, 18–20, 28, and 29 is affirmed. The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 2 and 6 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). See 2 “It is not the function of [the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior art.” In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “Similarly, it is not the function of this Board to examine claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for distinctions over the prior art.” Ex Parte Shen, 2008 WL 4105791 Appeal No. 2008-0418 at * 9 (BPAI 2008). Appeal 2012-004794 Application 10/874,634 6 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED gvw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation