Ex Parte Li et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 4, 201611721547 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 111721,547 10/28/2009 Mo Li 24737 7590 03/08/2016 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS P.O. BOX 3001 BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510 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. 2004P02965WOUS 1178 EXAMINER BRYAN, JASON B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2114 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/08/2016 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): debbie.henn@philips.com marianne.fox@philips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MO LI, DAHUA HE, JIN WANG, and YANG PENG Appeal2013-002884 Application 11/721,547 1 Technology Center 2100 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, THU ANN DANG, and STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This appeal arises under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-9, 15, and 16. No other claims are pending. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is U.S. Philips Corporation. App. Br. 3. Appeal2013-002884 Application 11/721,547 SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION The invention is directed to performing error correction of data in an optical disc by downloading backup data corresponding to the error data. See Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below: 1. A method for error correction of optical disc data, comprising the steps of: detecting an error in said optical disc data; repairing said error locally, said local repair being performed depending upon an extent of said error and a time to correct said error, wherein said error is locally repaired when the time to correct said error satisfies the playing requirements of the optical disc, wherein said local error repair is performed using an error correction coding (ECC) algorithm; obtaining a description information about said data detected in error when said data detected in error is not locally repaired; sending a request information for error correction based on said description information to a network server, wherein said network server stores backup data corresponding to the data on said optical disc, said request information for error correction comprises a request for downloading the backup data corresponding to said data detected in error; and replacing said data detected to be in error with one of: said locally repaired data and said downloaded backup data corresponding to said data detected in error so as to play said optical disc data with one of said locally repaired data and said downloaded backup data. 2 Appeal2013-002884 Application 11/721,547 REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6, 8, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in view of Ohran (US 2002/0083366 Al; June 27, 2002), Mounes-Toussi et al. (US 6,615,375 Bl; Sept. 2, 2003), and Kawahara (US 2004/0148551 Al; July 29, 2004). Final Act. 3-12. The Examiner rejected claims 2-5, 7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in view of Ohran, Mounes-Toussi, Kawahara, and Tsumagari et al. (US 2004/0126095 Al; July 1, 2004). Final Act. 12-14. ISSUES The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Ohran, Mounes-Toussi, and Kawahara teaches "wherein said error is locally repaired when the time to correct said error satisfies the playing requirements of the optical disc, wherein said local error repair is performed using an error correction coding (ECC) algorithm," as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 6 and 15. ANALYSIS Appellants argue that the combination of Ohran, Mounes-Toussi, and Kawahara fails to disclose using an ECC algorithm to repair data detected to be in error when time to repair the detected error is available. App. Br. 14. Appellants argue that "[ n ]owhere is the element of time associated with a repair of the data," and that Kawahara merely discloses determining "if there is sufficient time to re-read and decode the data again." App. Br. 14. According to Appellants, Kawahara discloses using a low-resolution image if time to re-read the data is not available, and thus Kawahara does not disclose considering time in determining whether to repair data. See id. at 3 Appeal2013-002884 Application 11/721,547 16. Appellants also state that "significant modification of the teachings of the references is necessary" to arrive at the claimed invention. See id. The Examiner responds that the combined teachings of Mounes- Toussi and Kawahara teach and suggest the disputed limitation. See Ans. 2; see also Final Act. 2-5. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Mounes- T oussi teaches and suggests the concept of attempting a local repair using ECC and fetching a remote copy if the local repair is not possible. Ans. 2. The Examiner also finds that Kawahara teaches and suggests the principle of suppressing the performance of a corrective action due to the lack of time necessary for real-time production of video data. Id. The Examiner finds that Kawahara's teaching/suggestion is applicable to error correction techniques other than re-reading data such as correcting data using ECC. Id. The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ohran and Mounes-Toussi "with the time requirement of Kawahara because it faciiitates data error conceaiment in reading data from optical discs." Final Act. 5 (citing Kawahara i-fi-17 and 16). Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred are not persuasive. Appellants attempt to distinguish each reference individually, rather than addressing the combined teachings of the references. See App. Br. 11-14 and 16. Each reference, however, must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches or suggests in combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness is not ... that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."). In KSR, the Supreme Court criticized a rigid approach to determining 4 Appeal2013-002884 Application 11/721,547 obviousness based on the disclosures of individual prior art references, with little recourse to the knowledge, creativity, and common sense that a skilled artisan would have brought to bear when considering combinations or modifications. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415--422 (2007); see also Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013). We agree with the Examiner's findings regarding the combined teachings of the references as set forth on page 2 of the Answer and pages 2 through 12 of the Final Office Action. For example, we agree that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Kawahara's time requirement to error correction techniques for optical discs. See, e.g., Ans. 2; Final Act. 5; Kawahara Abstract, Figs. 5 and 6, i-fi-17, 16; Mounes- Toussi 2:15-21, 2:51---61, 3:58---67, 6:27--41. Appellants fail to persuasively explain how the Examiner's analysis of the combined teachings of the references is erroneous. We also are unpersuaded by Appellants' specuiative statement that "significant modification of the teachings of the references is necessary" to arrive at the claimed invention. App. Br. 16. Appellants fail to identify sufficient evidence or provide persuasive argument in support of their assertion. See id. We thus sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1, 6, and 15. Appellants do not separately address the limitations added by dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, and 16, and rely exclusively on the arguments for the independent claims. See App. Br. 17-19. For the reasons explained above with respect to the independent claims, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of the dependent claims. 5 Appeal2013-002884 Application 11/721,547 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-9, 15, and 16. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation