Ex Parte Tinker et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 30, 2004

09092225 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 30, 2004)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte MICHAEL TINKER, JEREMY D. POLLACK
and GLENN ARTHUR REITMEIER
__________
Appeal No. 2002-0716
Application 09/092,225
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before FLEMING, RUGGIERO, and GROSS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 29 through 39, 46 through 54, 56, 57, 59 through 67, 69,
70 and 72 through 79. Claims 1 through 28 have been canceled.
The Examiner has indicated that claims 40 through 45, 55, 58, 68
Appeal No. 2002-0716
Application 09/092,255
2
and 71 are objected to for being dependent upon a rejected claim
and would be allowable if written in independent form.
Invention
The invention relates to a MPEG-like information
distribution system. The invention provides a low cost apparatus
for compressing, multiplexing and, in optional embodiments,
encrypting, transporting, decrypting, decompressing and
presenting high quality video information in a manner that
substantially preserves the fidelity of the video information.
See page 2 of Appellants’ specification. Figure 1 depicts a high
level block diagram of an audio-visual information delivery
system. Figure 2 depicts a high level block diagram of a video
compression unit and a video decompression unit and suitable for
use in the audio-visual information delivery system of Figure 1.
See page 4 of Appellants’ specification. The video compression
unit 21 depicted in Figure 2 comprises three standard MPEG
encoders 218R, 218G and 218B and a multiplexer 219. Similarly,
the video decompression unit 43 depicted in Figure 2 comprises a
demultiplexer 431, and three standard MPEG decoders 432R, 432G
and 432B. See page 14 of Appellants’ specification. The MPEG
standards and other MPEG-like standards and techniques compress
Appeal No. 2002-0716
Application 09/092,255
3
video information using an intra-framing coding technique. In
the case of video processing systems, MPEG and MPEG-like video
processing systems are characterized by prediction-based
compression encoding of video frames with or without intra-
and/or inter-frame motion compensation encoding. See pages 1 and
2 of Appellants’ specification.
Claims 29 and 66 are illustrative of the Appellants’ claimed
invention and are reproduced as follows:
29. An apparatus for processing a video information signal
comprising a plurality of full dynamic range components, said
apparatus comprising:
a compression encoder providing at least inter-frame coding,
for compression encoding said video information signal in a
manner substantially retaining said full dynamic range of said
full dynamic range components, said compression encoder
comprising at least two standard encoders, each of said standard
encoders being responsive to up to three component video signals,
each of said standard compression encoders tending to
substantially preserve a dynamic range and spatial resolution of
one component of said video signal, each of said standard
compression encoder providing a compressed output video signal;
and
a multiplexer, for multiplexing said compressed output video
signals of said two or more standard compression encoders to
produce a multiplexed information stream.
66. Apparatus for decoding a video information stream to
recover a video signal, said video information stream comprising
a plurality of substantially full dynamic range encoded video
signal components, said apparatus comprising:
Appeal No. 2002-0716
Application 09/092,255
4
a demultiplexer, for extracting from said video information
stream said plurality of substantially full dynamic range encoded
video signal components; and
a plurality of standard compression decoders responding to
at least inter frame coding each standard compression decoder
comprising a substantially full dynamic range decoding channel
and a plurality of partial dynamic range decoding channels, each
standard decoder being associated with a respective substantially
full dynamic range encoded video signal component, each standard
compression encoder decoding, using said respective substantially
full dynamic range decoding channel, said respective
substantially full dynamic range encoded video signal component
to produce a respective substantially full dynamic range decoded
video signal component.
References
The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows:
Heyl 5,486,929 Jan 23, 1996
Tanaka 5,541,739 Jul. 30, 1996
Naimpally 5,589,993 Dec. 31, 1996
Enari (EPO) 0,649,261 A2 Apr. 19, 1995
Rejections at Issue
Claims 29, 31, 33 through 39, 46 through 53, 56, 59 through
66, 69, 72 through 76, 78 and 79 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Heyl, Tanaka and Naimpally.
Claims 30, 32, 54, 57, 67, 70 and 77 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Heyl, Tanaka and
Naimpally in view of Enari.
Appeal No. 2002-0716
Application 09/092,255
5
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner rejections and the arguments of Appellants
and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 29 through 39, 46 through 54, 56,
57, 59 through 67, 69, 70 and 72 through 79 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming
forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellants.
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See also Piasecki,
745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788.
Appeal No. 2002-0716
Application 09/092,255
6
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments.
“In reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.”
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. “[T]he Board
must not only assure that the requisite findings are made, based
on evidence of record, but must also explain the reasoning by
which the findings are deemed to support the agency’s
conclusion.” In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430,
1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
We will first address the rejection of claims 29, 31, 33
through 39, 46 through 53, 56, 59 through 66, 69, 72 through 76,
78 and 79 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Heyl,
Tanaka and Naimpally. Appellants argue that neither of these
references teach or suggest “a compression encoder providing at
least inter-frame coding . . .” as recited in Appellants’ claims
29, 48, 53, 56 and 76. See pages 14 through 16 of the brief.
Appellants further argue that the references fail to teach or
suggest “a plurality of standard compression decoders responding
to at least inter-frame coding . . .” as recited in claim 66.
Appeal No. 2002-0716
Application 09/092,255
7
See pages 22 and 23 of the Brief. Appellants argue that the term
“inter-” is defined as a prefix for between, usually between
external and internal systems, or within the context of the
present invention, between frames. The term “interframe”
encoding is commonly understood in the relevant art to mean
coding techniques wherein information from one image frame is
used to encode another image frame. Thus, interframe encoding
specifically contemplates encoding techniques using information
between image frames, such as a macroblock in a second image
frame being derived as a predicted macroblock from the first
information frame. See page 12 of the brief.
The Examiner agrees that Heyl and Tanaka do not teach
interframe coding. See page 4 of the answer. The Examiner
argues that Naimpally teaches interframe coding in column 5,
lines 8 through 16.
In response, Appellants point out that the Examiner’s
reliance on column 5, lines 8 through 16, of Naimpally fails to
support a teaching of interframe coding. Appellants point out
that Naimpally specifically teaches that encoder 314 uses
“intracoding.” Appellants argue that intracoding is coding
Appeal No. 2002-0716
Application 09/092,255
8
within a single frame and does not teach intercoding of the
present invention. See pages 10 and 15 of the brief.
The Examiner acknowledges that Naimpally does teach intra-
frame and coding techniques but argues that Naimpally also
suggest the use of a “conventional MPEG encoder,” which uses
“motion compensated predictive encoding techniques.” The
Examiner’s points to column 6, lines 11 through 13 of Naimpally.
The Examiner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that Naimpally’s recitation of “motion compensated
predictive encoding techniques,” would include intra-frame
encoding. See page 6 of the Examiner’s answer.
The Federal Circuit reviews the Board’s ultimate conclusion
of obviousness without deference, and the Board’s underlying
factual determinations for substantial evidence. In re Huston,
308 F.3d 1267, 1276, 64 USPQ2d 1801, 1806 (Fed. Cir. 2002) citing
In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316, 53 USPQ2d 1769, 1776 (Fed.
Cir. 2000). “The Board’s findings must extend to all material
facts and must be documented on the record, lest the ‘haze of
Appeal No. 2002-0716
Application 09/092,255
9
so-called expertise’ acquire insulation from accountability.” In
re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1345, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1435 (Fed. Cir.
2002).
Upon our review of Naimpally, we fail to find any support
for the Examiner’s finding that Naimpally teaches inter-frame
coding as required by Appellants’ claims. Naimpally, teaches
that only intra-framing code techniques are used. See column 5,
lines 10 and 11. Also see column 6, lines 9 through 11. We also
find that Naimpally teaches that a conventional MPEG encoder
which uses motion compensated predictive encoding techniques may
also be used. See column 6, lines 11 through 12. However,
conventional MPEG encoders don’t necessarily have to use intra-
frame coding.
“To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make
clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present
in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so
recognized by person of ordinary skill.’” In re Robertson, Slip
Op 98-1270 (Fed. Cir. February 25, 1999) citing Continental Can
Co v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.3d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749
Appeal No. 2002-0716
Application 09/092,255
10
(Fed. Cir. 1991). “Inherency, however, may not be established by
probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain
thing may result for a give set of circumstances is not
sufficient.” Id. citing Continental Can Co. v. Mosanto Co.,
948 F.3d 1264, 1269, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Without further evidence to show that Naimpally teaches
expressly or by inherency inter-frame coding techniques, we can
not find that the combination teaches all the elements of the
claim. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 29, 31, 33 through 39, 46 through 53, 56, 59 through
66, 69, 72 through 76, 78 and 79 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Heyl, Tanaka and Naimpally.
Claims 30, 32, 54, 57, 67, 70 and 77 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Heyl, Tanaka and
Naimpally in view of Enari. We note that the Examiner relies on
Naimpally for the teaching of inter-frame coding. Furthermore,
we note that Enari fails to teach such coding, therefore, we will
not sustain this rejection for the same reasons as above.
Appeal No. 2002-0716
Application 09/092,255
11
In view of the foregoing, we have not sustained the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 29 through 39, 46 through 54, 56,
57, 59 through 67, 69, 70 and 72 through 79 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
REVERSED
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF:pgc
Appeal No. 2002-0716
Application 09/092,255
12
Moser, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP
Sarnoff Corporation
595 Shrewsbury Avenue
Suite 100
Shrewsbury, NJ 07702