Ex Parte Hattori et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 14, 201613216375 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2016) 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. 13/216,375 08/24/2011 Shinobu Hattori 4002-0490 3998 60803 7590 12/14/2016 Paratus Law Group, PLLC 1765 Greensboro Station Place Suite 320 Tysons Corner, VA 22102 EXAMINER ZHOU, ZHIHAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2482 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/14/2016 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 SHINOBU HATTORI and NAOHISA KITAZATO Appeal 2015-008106 Application 13/216,3751 Technology Center 2400 Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, HUNG H. BUI, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Office Action rejecting claims 1—15, 17, 18, and 20, which are all the claims pending on appeal. Claims 16 and 19 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.2 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Sony Corporation. App. Br. 3. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed April 29, 2015 (“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed September 8, 2015 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed July 7, 2015 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed December 4, 2014 (“Final Act.”); and original Specification filed August 24, 2011 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2015-008106 Application 13/216,375 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to a broadcasting system, shown in Figure 3, for broadcasting a digital television program. Spec. 17:3—12. Appellants’ Figure 3 shows a broadcasting system, as reproduced below: Appellants’ Figure 3 shows a broadcasting system As shown in Appellants’ Figure 3, Appellants’ broadcasting system includes: (1) broadcasting apparatus 31 to transmit a digital TV signal and trigger information embedded in or multiplexed with an encoded audio/video stream, and (2) receiving apparatus 60 to process the encoded audio/video stream. A broadcasting apparatus 31 is shown, for example, in Figure 4, as reproduced below: 43 41 Appellants’ Figure 4 shows a broadcasting apparatus. 2 Appeal 2015-008106 Application 13/216,375 As shown in Figure 4, Appellants’ broadcasting apparatus 31 includes several generic components such as: (1) trigger generating portion 41 to generate trigger information in time (sync) with an encoded video stream; (2) video encoding portion 42 to encode the video stream; (3) audio encoding portion 43 to encode an audio stream; (4) multiplexing portion 44 to multiplex the encoded video stream, the encoded audio stream, and “trigger information” into a transport stream (TS) in a particular format of digital TV signal suitable for network delivery, via sending portion 45. Spec. 19:15—21:14. According to Appellants, the “trigger information” is used as a command to instruct acquisition, execution, or termination of an application program for data broadcasting, and can be embedded in an encoded video stream, via video encoding portion 42, or alternatively, multiplexed with encoded video stream, via multiplexing portion 44. Spec. 18:5-12,21:3-18. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants’ invention shown in Figure 4, and is reproduced with disputed limitations emphasized below: 1. A transmitting apparatus transmitting contents, comprising: a trigger information generating section configured to generate trigger information on control for an application program which is executed in conjunction with the contents in a receiving apparatus; an encoding section configured to encode the contents to generate an encoded stream; a multiplexing section configured to multiplex the encoded stream to generate a multiplexed stream; and 3 Appeal 2015-008106 Application 13/216,375 a sending section configured to send the multiplexed stream, wherein [1] the trigger information is sent by carrying out the encoding with the contents by the encoding section to embed the trigger information in the encoded stream, and [2] the trigger information is also sent by carrying out the multiplexing with the trigger information and with the encoded stream having the trigger information already embedded therein, [3] the multiplexing being carried out by the multiplexing section to multiplex the trigger information, which has not been encoded, into the multiplexed stream along with the encoded stream having the trigger information already embedded therein, and wherein the trigger information generating section, the encoding section, the multiplexing section, and the sending section are each implemented via at least one processor. App. Br. 28 (Claims App.) (brackets added). Examiner’s Rejections and References (1) Claims 1, 2, 6—9, 13—15, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wiklund (US 2004/0179553 Al; published Sept. 16, 2004) and Dakss et al. (US 2006/0031914 Al; published Feb. 9, 2006; “Dakss”). Final Act. 2—8; Ans. 2—8. (2) Claims 3 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wiklund, Dakss, and Lei et al. (US 7,650,036 B2; issued Jan. 19, 2010; “Lei”). Final Act. 8—9; Ans. 9. (3) Claims 4 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wiklund, Dakss, and Leuratti et al. (EP 1 487 214 Al; published Dec. 15, 2004; “Leuratti”). Final Act. 9-10; Ans. 10-11. 4 Appeal 2015-008106 Application 13/216,375 (4) Claims 5 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wiklund, Dakss, and Patel et al. (US 2011/0093900 Al; published Apr. 21, 2011; “Patel”). Final Act. 10—12; Ans. 11—13. ISSUES Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issues presented on appeal are (1) whether the combination of Wiklund and Dakss teaches or suggests ah the limitations of Appellants’ claimed invention, and (2) whether the Examiner’s combination of Wiklund and Dakss is supported by sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning. App. Br. 18—22; Reply Br. 4-5. ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 2, 6—9, 13—15, 17, 18, and20 In support of the obviousness rejection of claim 1, the Examiner finds Wiklund teaches a broadcasting system comprising ah the claimed components, for example: a transmitting apparatus transmitting contents (FIG. 1 - remote transmitting means 101); and a receiving apparatus receiving the contents transmitted thereto (FIG. 1 - data localization means 103), wherein the transmitting apparatus includes a trigger information generating section configured to generate trigger information on control for an application program which is executed in conjunction with the contents in a receiving apparatus (FIG. 1 - automation system 108; [0083]), an encoding section configured to encode the contents to generate an encoded stream (FIG. 1 - encoder 106; [0081]), a multiplexing section configured to multiplex the encoded stream to generate a multiplexed stream (FIG. 1 - multiplexer 107; [0081]), and a sending section configured to send the multiplexed stream 5 Appeal 2015-008106 Application 13/216,375 ([0080] and [0084]), in which the trigger information is sent by carrying out the multiplexing with the encoded stream by the multiplexing section to multiplex the trigger information .... Ans. 3^4 (citing Wiklund ^fl[ 80-84, Fig. 1). The Examiner acknowledges Wiklund teaches “trigger information” multiplexed prior to transmission, but does not explicitly teach the alternative transmission of “trigger information,” i.e., “trigger information” embedded into the content stream, via encoding section. Ans. 4. The Examiner then relies on Dakss for teaching the use of “trigger information” embedded as part of content stream to support the conclusion of obviousness. Ans. 5 (citing Dakss ^fl[ 22, 23, 27, 29, and 31). Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 because Dakss’s teaching of “encoding a synchronization trigger along with content” and Wiklund’s “multiplexing of trigger information with digital data streams” are “separate and distinct ways of including [a] trigger information [that] cannot simply be combined to do both.” App. Br. 18—20; Reply Br. 4—5. In particular, Appellants argue “the synchronization trigger in Dakss is very different than [sic] both the triggering information of Wiklund and the trigger information of the claimed invention” because Wiklund’s triggering information is never encoded with contents of the digital data streams” or Wiklund’s “encoded digital data streams” do not have any trigger information embedded therewith.” App. Br. 20; Reply Br. 5. According to Appellants, Dakss’s “synchronization trigger” and Wiklund’s “triggering information” are so different that they cannot be interchanged. App. Br. 21; Reply Br. 5. 6 Appeal 2015-008106 Application 13/216,375 Appellants also argue: even if one of ordinary skill in the art were to combine the teachings of Wiklund with the teaching of Dakss, the resultant “synchronization trigger” that is embedded into the content element by encoding (as taught by Dakss) is not the same trigger or trigger information as the “triggering information” that is multiplexed with digital data streams (as taught by Wiklund). Therefore, Wiklund in view of Dakss clearly does not teach that the same trigger information is sent by (1) encoding with the trigger information with the contents to generate an encoded stream and also (2) multiplexing the trigger information with the encoded stream that already has the trigger information embedded therein. App. Br. 21 (emphasis in original). We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. Rather, we find the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants’ arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 13—20. Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and explanations provided therein. Id. For additional emphasis, we note “trigger information” in the context of a broadcasting system can only be transmitted along with a digital broadcast signal in two ways: (1) embedded in an encoded video stream, as disclosed by Dakss (see Dakss ]Hf 8, 22 (“synchronization triggers are embedded into a content element, via data inserter 112”)), or alternatively, (2) multiplexed with the encoded video stream into a multiplexed stream, as disclosed by Wiklund (see Wiklund ]Hf 5—6, 25, Fig. 1). These techniques are considered interchangeable and are well-known techniques used to transmit “trigger information” as part of a digital broadcast signal as recognized by the Examiner. Ans. 19. Appellants’ Specification further confirms the interchangeability of these two techniques as follows: 7 Appeal 2015-008106 Application 13/216,375 the broadcasting apparatus 31 transmits trigger information as a command to instruct acquisition or execution of the contents for the data broadcasting which is executed in conjunction with a program or a CM in the form of being contained in the digital television broadcasting signal. Specifically, the trigger information is transmitted in the form of being embedded in an encoded video stream or in the form of being multiplexed with the encoded video stream or the like. Spec. 18:5—12, 21:3—18 (emphasis added). Because these are interchangeable and well-known techniques used to transmit “trigger information” as part of a digital broadcast signal, we agree with the Examiner that any modification of Wiklund’s digital transmission system to further embed “trigger information” as part of an encoded video stream as disclosed by Dakss would have been obvious as a use of a known technique to improve a similar broadcasting system in the same way to obtain predictable results. Ans. 18—19; see KSR Ini 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415—16 (2007) (“[A] combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). Likewise, we are not persuaded that the Examiner failed to articulate sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to modify Wiklund’s digital transmission system to further embed “trigger information” as part of an encoded video stream as disclosed by Dakss. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 6, 16—17; see also In re Cree, 818 F.3d 694, 702, n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (appellants’ hindsight argument is of no moment where the Examiner provides a sufficient, non-hindsight reason to combine the references). Lastly, we note Appellants have not presented sufficient evidence or persuasive argument that modifying Wiklund’s digital transmission system to further embed “trigger information” as part of an encoded video stream as 8 Appeal 2015-008106 Application 13/216,375 disclosed by Dakss would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or would have “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418^119). Nor have Appellants provided objective evidence of secondary considerations, which our reviewing court guides “operates as a beneficial check on hindsight.” Cheese Systems, Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Systems, 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). With respect to independent claims 6—8 and 13—15 and dependent claims 2, 9, 17, 18, and 20, Appellants reiterate the same arguments presented against claim 1. App. Br. 22. For the same reasons discussed, we also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 2, 6—9, 13—15, 17, 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). With respect to remaining dependent claims 3—5 and 10-13, Appellants reiterate the same arguments presented against claim 1. App. Br. 22—26. For the same reasons discussed, we also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 3—5 and 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 9 Appeal 2015-008106 Application 13/216,375 CONCLUSION3 On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—15, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—15, 17, 18, and 20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 3 In the event of further prosecution, we suggest the Examiner consider rejecting claims 1—15, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of support. For example, Appellants’ original Specification only describes transmitting “trigger information” embedded in an encoded video stream or multiplexed with the encoded video stream. Spec. 18:5—12, 21:3— 18. Nowhere in Appellants’ original Specification is there any support for Appellants’ claimed “trigger information” being both (1) “embedded in an encoded video stream” and (2) “multiplexed with the encoded video stream,” as recited in each of Appellants’ independent claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 15. 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation