BRULS, WILHELMUS HENDRIKUS ALFONSUS. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 3, 2020

14476230 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2020)

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.
14/476,230 09/03/2014 WILHELMUS HENDRIKUS ALFONSUS BRULS 2007P00940US01 5428
24737 7590 02/03/2020
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
SHIU, HO T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2457
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/03/2020 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte WILHELMUS HENDRIJUS ALFONSUS BRULS
and ARNAUD PIERRE HERVE BOURGE
____________________

Appeal 2019-001580
Application 14/476,230
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before BRYAN F. MOORE, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and JASON M.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–13. Claims 1–22 are pending.

1 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Specification filed
September 3, 2014 (“Spec.”), the Final Rejection mailed February 8, 2018
(“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed July 9, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer mailed October 22, 2018 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief
filed December 10, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Koninklijke Philips N.V. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001580
Application 14/476,230

2
Appeal Br. 8. Claims 14–22 have been withdrawn. Id. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to
field of video encoding and decoding. Spec., 1:7–10. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added to
contested prior-art limitation):
1. A method of encoding a video data signal including a first
signal and a second signal the method comprising act of:
interleaving frames of the first signal with frames of the
second signal to form a combined signal;
encoding by an encoder the combined signal to form an
encoded combined signal wherein the encoding act
encodes the first signal in a self-contained manner
without using information from the second signal and
encodes that second signal using information from the
first signal;
splitting the encoded signal into separate primary
bitstreams including a first bitstream including data for
the first signal and a second bitstream including data for
the second signal; and,
providing the bitstream with a first code to form a first
coded bitstream; and
providing the second bitstream with a second code to
form a second coded bitstream, wherein the second code
is different from the first code.
Appeal Br. 16(Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-001580
Application 14/476,230

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 5–9, and 11–13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of US 2002/0009137 A1,
published Jan 24, 2002 (“Nelson”), and in view of US 2007/0071093 A1,
published Mar. 29, 2007 (“Shi”). Final Act. 2–10.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Nelson, and in view of Shi, in further
view of US 6,925,250 B1, issued Aug. 2, 2005 (“Oshima”). Final Act. 10–
11.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Nelson, and in view of Shi, in further
view of US 5,233,302, issued Aug. 3, 1993 (“Xiang”). Final Act. 11–12.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive arguments
for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis in our analysis below.
Rejection of Claims 1–3, 5–9, and 11–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds that claims 1–3, 5–9, and 11–13 would have been
obvious over the combination of Nelson and Shi. Final Act. 2–10.
Appeal 2019-001580
Application 14/476,230

4
Specifically, the Examiner cites to Nelson as teaching the bulk of the
limitations, but, because Nelson recites compressed streams rather than
encoded streams, the Examiner relies on “Shi to clearly identify that the
combined single of Nelson is an encoded combined signal.” Ans. 8 (citing
Shi ¶ 27, 29, 31, 41) (emphasis added).
Appellant argues “[i]nterleaving frames of the first signal with frames
of the second signal to form a combined signal, then encoding a combined
signal to form an encoded combined signal, and then splitting the encoded
combined signal are nowhere disclosed or suggested Nelson and Shi, alone
or in combination.” Appeal Br. 13. Specifically, Appellant argues that
Nelson and Shi, alone or in combination does not disclose “splitting the
encoded signal into separate bitstreams including a first bitstream including
data for the first signal and a second bitstream including data for the second
signal” (the “splitting” limitation). Id. at 9–13. First, Appellant argues that,
“Nelson merely discloses to combine the three separate compressed streams
368, 370, 372 without splitting them before or after being combined” (Reply
Br. 4). Second, Appellant states “appears that the Examiner is equating a
demultiplexer to a splitter.” Reply Br. 6. In response to this Examiner
argument, Appellant argues
it should be noted that a demultiplexer is different from, and not
analogous to, a splitter as a demultiplexer ‘extracts,’ as correctly
noted on page 6, line 6 of the Examiner’s Answer. By contrast,
a splitter splits, such as splitting one stream into two. Similarly,
a multiplexer is also different from, and not analogous to, a
splitter as a multiplexer combines and does not split one stream
into two streams.
Id. at 6.
Appeal 2019-001580
Application 14/476,230

5
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. First, although the cited portions of Nelson do not
explicitly use the words “splitting,” it is clear that Nelson discloses streams
that are combined by means of a multiplexer (see Ans. 9 (citing Nelson
¶¶ 44, 85)) and subsequently split back into separate streams by a
demultiplexer. See Ans. 5–6 (citing Nelson ¶¶ 8, 9). Appellant has not
explained sufficiently why multiplexing and demultiplexing the streams in
Nelson should not be found to be combining and splitting the signal, as
recited in claim 1, in the broadest reasonable interpretation of “splitting.”
We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that Nelson teaches “splitting the
encoded signal into separate bitstreams including a first bitstream including
data for the first signal and a second bitstream including data for the second
signal.” Ans. 5–6.
We, therefore, are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the
Examiner’s rejection is in error with respect to the splitting limitation.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
obvious over the combination of Nelson and Shi. We also sustain the
rejection of claims 2, 3, 5–9, and 11–13, which are not argued separately
(see Appeal Br. 8–9), as obvious over the combination of Nelson and Shi.
Rejection of Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds that claim 4 would have been obvious over the
combination of Nelson, Shi, and Oshima. Final Act. 12–14. Appellant does
not separately address these claims. See Appeal Br. 10–11. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 as obvious over the
combination of Nelson, Shi, and Oshima.
Appeal 2019-001580
Application 14/476,230

6
Rejection of Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds that claim 10 would have been obvious over the
combination of Nelson, Shi, and Xiang. Final Act. 11–12. Appellant does
not separately address these claims. See Appeal Br. 8–9. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 as obvious over the
combination of Nelson, Shi, and Xiang.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–9,
11–13
103(a) Nelson and Shi 1–3, 5–9,
11–13

4 103(a) Nelson, Shi, and Oshima 4
10 103(a) Nelson, Shi, and Xiang 10
Overall
Outcome
1–13
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED