Ex Parte PasqualinoDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 19, 201310034414 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte CHRISTOPHER PASQUALINO ____________________ Appeal 2011-007715 Application 10/034,414 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-007715 Application 10/034,414 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 19-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1-18 have been canceled. We REVERSE. Introduction According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a system and method for transmitting auxiliary data in video encoding (Abstract). Exemplary Claim Claim 19, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 19. A system for transmitting auxiliary data in video encoding comprising: an un-enhanced encoder; an enhanced encoder; an un-enhanced decoder adapted to communicate with said un-enhanced and enhanced encoders; and an enhanced decoder adapted to communicate with said un-enhanced and enhanced encoders. Appeal 2011-007715 Application 10/034,414 3 REFERENCES Mair Mair US 2002/0186322 A1 App. 60/296,924 (hereinafter “’924 Provisional”) Dec. 12, 2002 Jun. 8, 2001 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejection: Claim 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mair (Ans. 4-5). ISSUE 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 19-21 Appellant asserts the invention as recited in claim 19 is not obvious over Mair because the portions cited by the Examiner do not antedate Appellant’s filing date (App. Br. 5-8). According to Appellant, the Examiner has erred in determining Mair claims priority to ’924 Provisional. Specifically, Appellant contends ’924 Provisional does not disclose any of Mair’s Figures 1-5 and does not support the citations relied upon by the Examiner (App. Br. 6). Appellant argues the ’924 Provisional describes use of extra bits, but does not teach the description disclosed in the cited portions of Mair (App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 6-8). Thus, the issue presented by these arguments is: Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Mair qualifies as prior art and thus, in rejecting the present invention as recited in claim 19 for obviousness? Appeal 2011-007715 Application 10/034,414 4 ANALYSIS We agree with Appellant. The Examiner has not shown the limited disclosure relied upon in ’924 Provisional renders the present invention obvious. Indeed, ’924 Provisional describes use of 8 bit/10 bit encoding for data with two extra bits performing specific and distinct functions (pg. 1, § Introduction). ’924 Provisional further discloses the proposal is to use DC balancing bits to transport audio information (id.). ’924 Provisional also discloses replacing the DC balance bit with audio data (pg. 1-2, § Principle of Operation). However, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown ’924 Provisional discloses the teachings which the Examiner relies upon in rejecting the present invention as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we are constrained to reverse the rejection of claims 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Mair. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mair is reversed. REVERSED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation