Ex Parte Murray et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 6, 201510555214 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2015) 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. 10/555,214 01/04/2006 Kevin Murray 7251-95173 4485 24628 7590 02/06/2015 Husch Blackwell LLP Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz 120 S RIVERSIDE PLAZA 22ND FLOOR CHICAGO, IL 60606 EXAMINER VO, TUNG T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/06/2015 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 KEVIN MURRAY, DAVID FINK, and EZRA DARSHAN Appeal 2012-0078951 Application 10/555,214 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–13 and 15–40. Claim 14 has been cancelled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 Appellants have identified the real party in interest as NDS, LTD. App. Br. 2. An oral hearing was held in this appeal on January 22, 2015. Appeal 2012-007895 Application 10/555,214 2 Appellants’ Invention Appellants invented a method and system for accessing in a personal video recorder (PVR) content information (e.g., start, end, locations, types, time) pertaining to a digital video signal encoded in a plurality of layers. Spec. 1: 9–19. In particular, upon detecting content information extracted from a first encoding layer of the signal has been modified, the second encoding layer thereof is updated with the extracted content, and placed in a readily accessible retrieval area of the digital signal. Spec. 4:2–15, Fig. 2. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as follows: 1. A method for providing access to operation information relating to a digital signal, the method comprising: providing a digital signal encoded, in accordance with a layered encoding scheme, in a plurality of layers; and extracting operation information from a first layer of encoding within the digital signal, and placing the extracted information in a data section in a second layer of encoding within the digital signal, wherein the extracted information is placed in the second layer as a consequence of the extracted information having changed relative to an earlier version of the extracted information. Prior Art Relied Upon Sugahara US 6,683,987 B1 Jan. 27, 2004 Balakrishnan US 2005/0036557 A1 Feb. 17, 2005 Appeal 2012-007895 Application 10/555,214 3 Zhang US 7,096,488 B1 Aug. 22, 2006 Candelore US 7,124,303 B2 Oct. 17, 2006 Hallberg US 7,298,959 B1 Nov. 20, 2007 Kabayashi US 7,397,819 B2 Jul. 8, 2008 Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows: Claims 1–4, 7–9, 13, 15–27, 35, 36, 38, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Balakrishnan. Claims 1–4, 7–13, 15–27, 35, 36, 38, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Zhang. Claims 1–4, 7, 8, 10–13, 15–27, 35, 36, 38, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Sugahara. Claims 1–7, 13, 15, 16, 18, 35, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Kobayashi. Claims 1, 35, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Hallberg. Claims 9, 28–34, 37, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Sugahara and Candelore. ANALYSIS We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 8–45, and the Reply Brief, pages 2–7.2 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed December 30, 2011), the Reply Brief (filed April 16, 2012), and the Answer (mailed February 22, 2012) for the Footnote continued on next page. Appeal 2012-007895 Application 10/555,214 4 Anticipation Rejections Dispositive Issues: Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, did the Examiner err in finding Balakrishnan, Zhang, Sugahara, Kobayashi, and Hallberg individually describe that as a consequence of information extracted from a first layer of encoding within a digital signal having changed relative to an earlier version, placing the extracted information in a second layer within the signal, as recited in claim 1? Appellants argue none of the cited references describe the disputed limitations emphasized above. App. Br. 10–24. We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ contentions. As noted above in our summary of Appellants’ invention, the disputed claims on appeal are primarily directed to maintaining data consistency in different layers of an encoded data stream associated with a digital signal. Therefore, except as indicated otherwise, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and as detailed in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. See Ans. 30–61. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. 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). Appeal 2012-007895 Application 10/555,214 5 Balakrishnan Appellants argue Balakrishnan does not describe extracting operation information from a first encoding layer, and placing the extracted information in a second layer of a same digital signal as a consequence of the extracted information having changed as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 10–13. According to Appellants, in Balakrishnan, “the signal into which the ancillary information is inserted is not necessarily the same signal from which it was extracted.” Id. at 12. Further, Appellants argue Balakrishnan does not describe “the extracted ancillary information is inserted in a different encoding layer than the encoding layer from which it was extracted.” Id. Additionally, Appellants argue because Balakrishnan’s extraction and insertion of ancillary information has to be aligned with the synchronization points, the insertion of information is not performed as a consequence of the extracted information having changed. Id. at 13. These arguments are not persuasive. Balakrishnan discloses processing ancillary information at synchronization points identified in the lower layer of an elementary stream to produce a modified sequence, which is inserted into a system layer stream. Balakrishnan Abstr., ¶¶ 7, 28, 42, 51. We agree with the Examiner that because Balakrishnan discloses extracting ancillary information from a first layer of an elementary stream, and subsequently inserting the extracted information into a new layer of the elementary stream when the extracted stream has been modified (Ans. 31–33), Balakrishnan is directed to maintaining data consistency between different encoding layers of a data signal, and thereby describes the disputed limitations. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by Balakrishnan. It therefore follows that Appellants have failed to show error Appeal 2012-007895 Application 10/555,214 6 in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1, 35, and 38 which are grouped together. Zhang Appellants argue Zhang does not describe extracting operation information from a first encoding layer, and placing the extracted information in a second layer of a same digital signal as a consequence of the extracted information having changed. App. Br. 14–16. According to Appellants, Zhang’s disclosure of converting a B or P frame into an I frame merely describes changing certain information in a data stream, as opposed to placing on a different layer information extracted from another layer. Id. Further, Appellants argue because Zhang discloses inserting the location information in the data stream regardless, such insertion is not done as a consequence of having extracted the information from the incoming bit stream. Id. at 16. These arguments are not persuasive. Zhang discloses a two stage strategy for providing compressed video data from multiple bit streams. Zhang Abstr. In the first stage, an incoming compressed bit stream of video data is de-multiplexed to obtain insertion points and splicing locations included therein. Zhang Col. 11, ll. 38–50. The compressed video data is subsequently conditioned by inserting digital content at extracted insertion locations and spliced points. In the second stage, a second bit of the compressed video data is spliced into the conditioned first bit thereby updating the first bit with changes made to the first bit stream. Zhang Col. 11, ll. 57–67. As a result, different layers of the data stream are aligned. Zhang Col. 12, ll. 32–38. Thus, we agree with the Examiner because Zhang’s disclosure of identifying in an incoming video bit stream insertion Appeal 2012-007895 Application 10/555,214 7 locations and corresponding splice points to thereby update a second video bit stream (Ans. 34–35), Zhang describes placing the extracted information on a second layer of the video content as a consequence of modifying content of a first layer in the video stream. It therefore follows that Appellants have failed to show error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1, 35, and 38 which are grouped together. Sugahara Appellants argue Sugahara does not describe extracting operation information from a first encoding layer, and placing the extracted information in a second layer of a same digital signal as a consequence of the extracted information having changed. App. Br. 17–20. According to Appellants, the Examiner erroneously equates Sugahara’s current picture to a first encoding layer and a preceding picture to a second encoding layer. Id. at 18. Further, Appellants argue because a picture substituted for another remains in its original layer, as opposed to a different layer, Sugahara does not describe placing the extracted information into a different layer. Id. These arguments are persuasive. Sugahara discloses a method and system for altering the picture updating frequency within a compressed video data stream. Abstr. In particular, after extracting temporal references from an incoming data stream portion corresponding to a current basic picture (B picture), the extracted characteristics are compared to those of a preceding B-picture in another portion of the data stream to copy the previous picture code into the current one thereby making them consistent. Sugahara Col. 15, l. 60– col. 16, l. 13, Figs. 13A, 13B. We do not agree with the Examiner that the different portions of the data stream can be construed as layers thereof. Appeal 2012-007895 Application 10/555,214 8 Thus, although we agree with the Examiner that Sugahara discloses extracting temporal information from a current picture to thereby cause a P picture to be consistent with a B picture that has been modified, such disclosure does not describe placing the extracted information on a second layer of the video content as a consequence of modifying content of a first layer in the data stream. Ans. 35–36. Because Appellants have shown at least one reversible error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1, we need not reach Appellants’ additional argument regarding the claim. It therefore follows that Appellants have shown error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1. Likewise, because claims 2–4, 7, 8, 10–13, 15–20, 35, 38 also recite the disputed limitations discussed above, the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of these claims is in error. We will not sustain this rejection. Because claims 21–27, 36, and 39, included in the anticipation rejection based upon Sugahara, do not recite the different layer encoding schemes, Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 36–37) are not persuasive. We therefore agree with the Examiner that Sugahara’s disclosure of extracting data from a B picture that has been modified to update a subsequent picture in a video frame teaches the disputed limitations. Ans. 54–57. Consequently, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 21–27, 36, and 39. Kobayashi Appellants argue Kobayashi does not describe extracting operation information from a first encoding layer, and placing the extracted information in a second layer of a same digital signal as a consequence of Appeal 2012-007895 Application 10/555,214 9 the extracted information having changed. App. Br. 20–21. Appellants submit Kobayashi discloses inserting into the payload of a compressed Ethernet frame an identifier extracted from an IP header of an ordinary Ethernet frame. App. Br. 20. According to Appellants, however, because such insertion is done regardless of whether the extracted information has changed, Kobayashi does not describe the disputed limitations. Id. These arguments are not persuasive. Although the claim recites an extraction/insertion when an earlier version has been changed, such recitation cannot be limited to performing the extraction/insertion only when an update to an earlier version has occurred. It suffices that the prior art provides an extraction/insertion continuum that includes or encompasses the conditional extraction/insertion recited in the claim. Kobayashi discloses a method and system for compressing data packets encoded in a plurality of layers. Abstr. In particular, after extracting an identifier from an IP header of an Ethernet frame in a first layer of the data packet, the extracted information is inserted into the payload of another frame in a different layer. Id., Fig. 6A. Thus, although Appellants correctly note the insertion of the codec signal extracted from one layer into the payload of another layer is done routinely for compression reasons, (App. Br. 20), we find such continuous insertion encompasses the occasional insertion that occurs when the extracted information has changed. Besides, the claimed insertion does not preclude the continuous insertion taught by Kobayashi. Thus, we agree with the Examiner, Kobayashi’s disclosure of inserting into a subsequent layer frame data extracted from a preceding layer describes placing the extracted information on a second layer of the video content as a consequence of modifying content of a first layer in the data stream. Ans. Appeal 2012-007895 Application 10/555,214 10 37–38. It therefore follows that Appellants have failed to show error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1. Hallberg Appellants argue Hallberg does not describe extracting operation information from a first encoding layer, and placing the extracted information in a second layer of a same digital signal as a consequence of the extracted information having changed. App. Br. 23–24. Appellants contend the difference between DV formatted packets and IEEE 1394 packets do not necessarily imply that DV MPEG data are inserted into the 1394 packets. App. Br. 23. According to Appellants, because such insertion is done regardless of whether the extracted information has changed, Hallberg does not describe the disputed limitations. Id. at 24. These arguments are not persuasive. Hallberg discloses a multi-layered encoding of video data wherein data previously encoded in a first layer is forwarded to an IEEE 1394 encoder in a second encoding layer. Abstr, Fig. 5. Appellants correctly argue the insertion of the MPEG data extracted from one layer into IEEE 1394 layer occurs regardless of whether there has been any change in the particular data being moved. App. Br. 24. However, because such continuous insertion encompasses the occasional insertion that occurs when the extracted information has changed, and the claimed insertion does not preclude the continuous insertion taught by Hallberg, the reference describes the disputed limitations. Thus, we agree with the Examiner, Hallberg’s disclosure of inserting into an IEEE 1394 layer MPEG data extracted from a preceding layer describes placing the extracted information on a second layer of the video content as a consequence of modifying content of a first Appeal 2012-007895 Application 10/555,214 11 layer in the data stream. Ans. 38–39. It therefore follows that Appellants have failed to show error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1. Claims 2–13, 15–27, 35, 36, 38, and 393 Regarding the rejections of claims 2–13, 15–27, 35, 36, 38 and 39, to the extent Appellants have either merely restated claim limitations without identifying error in the Examiner’s findings (which we do not consider arguments for separate patentability) or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2–13, 15–27, 35, 36, 38 and 39 fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejections of those claims for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. Further, to the extent Appellants have raised additional arguments for patentability of these claims (App. Br. 24–45), we find that the Examiner has rebutted in the Answer each and every one of those arguments by a preponderance of the evidence. Answer 39–59. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning, which we incorporate herein by reference. Because Appellants have failed to persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings regarding the rejections of claims 2–13, 15–27, 35, 36, 38 and 39, Appellants have failed to show error in the Examiner’s rejections of these claims. 3 This discussion excludes the Examiner’s rebuttal arguments in support of the anticipation rejections of claims 1–4, 7–13, 15–20 over Sugahara as set forth above. Appeal 2012-007895 Application 10/555,214 12 Obviousness Rejection Because dependent claim 9 also recites the different layering schemes not taught by Sugahara as discussed above, and Candelore is not relied upon to remedy the noted deficiencies, Appellants have shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of the claim. We will not sustain this rejection. Regarding the rejection of claims 28–34, 37, and 40, Appellants argue the combination of Sugahara and Candelore does not teach or suggest a received signal comprising an encrypted packet, and unencrypted packet, each containing a copy of the same operation information. App. Br. 42. According to Appellants, although Candelore discloses encrypted packets and unencrypted packets, the two kinds of packets do not contain copies of the same operation information. Id. at 43. We agree with Appellants. Even though the Examiner correctly finds that Candelore teaches inserting encrypted and unencrypted packets into an output stream (Ans. 59), the Examiner has not shown that the two kinds of packets contain the same operation information. Because Appellants have shown at least one reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of those claims, we need not reach Appellants’ additional arguments regarding these claims. Appellants have therefore shown error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 28–34, 37, and 40. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4, 7, 8, 10–13, 15– 20, 35, and 38 as being anticipated by Sugahara. We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 28–34, 37, and 40 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sugahara and Candelore. However, we affirm all Appeal 2012-007895 Application 10/555,214 13 other rejections of record pertaining to claims 1–13 and 15–27, 35, 36, 38, and 39 as set forth above. 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). AFFIRMED-IN-PART gvw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation