Ex Parte Glennon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2018

14682467 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/682,467 04/09/2015
135792 7590 12/25/2018
Cable Television Laboratories, Inc.
858 Coal Creek Circle
Louisville, CO 80027
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stephen G. Glennon
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.
60693 5357
EXAMINER
YOUNG, PATRICIA I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/25/2018 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):
d.smith@cablelabs.com
p.calderwood@cablelabs.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN G. GLENNON, ARIANNE T. HINDS, and
GREGORY RUTZ
Appeal2018-003964
Application 14/682,467
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection
of claims 1, 3---6, and 8-12. Appellants have cancelled claims 2 and 7. App.
Br. 11-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). REVERSED.
1 Appellants indicate the real party in interest is Cable Television
Laboratories, Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-003964
Application 14/682,467
Representative Claim
Representative claim 1 under appeal reads as follows ( emphasis,
formatting, and bracketed material added):
1. A video compression system, comprising:
[A.] a decimation filter operable to receive a video
datastream, and to filter the video datastream to
remove spatial data components and temporal data
components of the video data stream;
[B.] a video codec operable to compress the filtered
video datastream;
[C.] a comparator operable to first reconstruct the video
datastream based on the filtering and the
compression, to compare the video datastream to
the first reconstructed video datastream on a
frame-by-frame basis, wherein one frame of the
first reconstructed video datastream is compared
to a same frame of the video datastream, and to
determine a difference video datastream based on
the comparison;
[D.] a generator operable to generate data based on the
difference video datastream, wherein the data
comprises pixel variation errors between the video
datastream and the first reconstructed video
datastream; and
[E.] a combiner operable to combine the filtered-
compressed video datastream with the data for
second reconstruction of the video datastream by a
receiver.
2
Appeal2018-003964
Application 14/682,467
Adiletta et al.
Blum
References2
us 6,101,276
US 2007/0058716 Al
Rejection on Appeal
Aug. 8, 2000
Mar. 15, 2007
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3---6, and 8-12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Adiletta and Blum. 3
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
A.
The Examiner determines Adiletta teaches above claim 1 limitation C.
Final Act. 9-11.
B.
The contentions we discuss are determinative as to the rejection on
appeal. Therefore, Appellants' other contentions are not discussed in detail
herein.
2 All citations herein to these references are by reference to the first named
inventor only.
3 The contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are determinative as to all
claims subject to this rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision,
we do not discuss claims 3---6 and 8-12 further herein.
3
Appeal2018-003964
Application 14/682,467
Appellants raise the following argument in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Adiletta discloses a video compression and decompression
technique with pipelining and buffer management. More
specifically, Adiletta performs a motion estimation and
compensation by comparing "blocks" (i.e., portions) of one
frame to blocks of previous frames. See e.g., column 2, lines 1 -
19 of Adiletta. The Appellant[ s ], however, claims the
comparison of an original video datastream on a frame by frame
basis to a video datastream that is reconstructed based on
decimation filtering and compression. In other words, frames of
one video datastream are compared to the same frames of a
reconstructed video datastream in the Appellant[s'] claimed
invention. This is substantially different than Adiletta, which is
focused on comparing different frames of the same datastream.
App. Br. 7.
C.
The Examiner responds by reiterating that Adiletta teaches the argued
limitation (Ans. 15-16) and cites to Adiletta at "fig. 2, 3, 6D, col. 1, 11. 29-
40, col. 7, 11. 28-29, 41-44, 53-59, col. 14, 11. 47-52, col. 15, 11. 8-10, col. 39,
11. 9-19." Ans. 15-16 (emphasis omitted).
D.
As articulated by the Federal Circuit, the Examiner's burden of
proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re
Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ("preponderance of the
evidence is the standard that must be met by the PTO in making rejections").
"A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis[.]" In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). "The Patent Office has the
initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not ...
4
Appeal2018-003964
Application 14/682,467
resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to
supply deficiencies in its factual basis." Id.
We conclude the Examiner's analysis fails to meet this standard
because the rejections do not adequately explain the Examiner's findings of
fact. Particularly, we agree with Appellants that Adiletta does not teach the
claim 1 limitation of "one frame of the first reconstructed video datastream
is compared to a same frame of the video datastream." We conclude,
consistent with Appellants' arguments, there is insufficient articulated
reasoning to support the Examiner's finding that Adiletta teaches this
limitation. Therefore, we further conclude that there is insufficient
articulated reasoning to support the Examiner's final conclusion that claim 1
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Appellants' invention.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 3---6, and 8-12 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) On this record, the Examiner has not shown claims 1, 3---6, and 8-
12 to be unpatentable.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3---6, and 8-12.
REVERSED
5