Ex Parte Li et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 4, 2016

11721547 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2016)

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