Ex Parte Apostolopoulos

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2014

11591029 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOHN G. APOSTOLOPOULOS
____________________

Appeal 2011-012746
Application 11/591,029
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and LARRY J.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-012746
Application 11/591,029

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates to data processing
(Spec. 1, ll. 10-11).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. In a device communicatively coupled to a network, a method of
processing data, said method comprising:
receiving a plurality of data having first authentication information
associated therewith, wherein said first authentication information was
determined using said plurality of data and is useful for authenticating said
plurality of data and wherein said plurality of data is not required to be
packetized;
adapting at least a portion of said plurality of data to produce a
plurality of modified data, wherein said plurality of modified data is not
required to be packetized; and
transmitting said plurality of modified data and said first
authentication information, wherein said first authentication information is
useful for authenticating said plurality of modified data.

C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Yongdong Wu, et al. Progressive Protection of JPEG2000 Codestreams
2004 International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) IEEE (2004).

Appeal 2011-012746
Application 11/591,029

3
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Wu.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
finding Wu teaches “receiving a plurality of data” that “is not required to be
packetized,” and “adapting” a portion of said data “to produce a plurality of
modified data” that “is not required to be packetized” as recited in claim 1
(emphases added).

III. ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that “Wu requires the use of packetized
codestreams” (App. Br. 11). Thus, Appellant contends that Wu does not
anticipate “receiving a plurality of data . . . wherein said plurality of data is
not required to be packetized; adapting at least a portion . . . to produce a
plurality of modified data, wherein said plurality of modified data is not
required to be packetized” as recited in claim 1 (id.).
At the outset, we note by arguing that Appellant’s received data
differs from Wu’s data because Wu’s data requires the use of packetized
codestream (id.), Appellant’s principal argument urging patentability is
predicated on non-functional descriptive material (i.e., the type or content of
the data that is received and the type or content of the modified data that is
intended to be produced). That is, “not required to be packetized” is the
type/content of the data being received or intended to be produced, but the
type of data being received or produced does not change the functionality of
or provide an additional function to the “receiving” step or the intended
Appeal 2011-012746
Application 11/591,029

4
purpose step of “to produce” in claim 1. The informational content of non-
functional descriptive material is not entitled to weight in the patentability
analysis. See Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008)
(precedential); Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272 (BPAI 2005) (informative)
(Federal Circuit Appeal No. 2006-1003, aff’d, Rule 36 (June 12, 2006)); Ex
parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI 2005) (informative), aff’d, 191 Fed.
Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Nevertheless, even if arguendo our reviewing court were to give
patentable weight to the non-functional descriptive material, we must give
the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Although claim 1 recites that the data “is not required to be packetized”
(emphasis added), the claim does not preclude the data from being
packetized, but rather, merely recites that the data is “not required” to be
packetized. In fact, the claim does not even specify when or for what action
the data is not required to be packetized. That is, claim 1 does not specify
whether the data is not required to be packetized for receipt, for adaption or
for transmission, and whether it is not required before, during or after such
action. Accordingly, we give data “not required to be packetized” its
broadest reasonable interpretation as data that is packetized, but may also be
not packetized, any time during the processing of the data.
We find no error with the Examiner’s conclusion that the recitation
“neither represents any positive, explicit, or active method step, further
limits or restricts any antecedent method step within the claimed method,
nor represents an exclusion of packetizing data from the scope of the
claimed method” (Ans. 10). We agree with the Examiner that the scope of
Appeal 2011-012746
Application 11/591,029

5
the claims covers “wherein data may be packetized or wherein the data may
not be packetized” (id.). In fact, as the Examiner points out, “the appellant’s
own claimed invention requires the data to be packetized” in dependent
claims 8, 13, and 18 (Ans. 11).
In view of our broadest but reasonable interpretation, we find no error
with the Examiner’s finding that Wu discloses receiving data that is “not
required” to be packetized and adapting a portion of the data for the intended
purpose of “to produce” modified data that is “not required” to be packetized
(Ans. 5). Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 1 over Wu.
As to independent claims 9 and 14, Appellant contends that “the
claimed embodiments refer to the determination and usage of ‘state
information’/’summary information’” wherein “Wu does not disclose that a
hash value is analogous to the ‘state information’/ ‘summary information’”
(App. Br. 13). By arguing that Appellant’s “‘state information’” or
“‘summary information’” differs from Wu’s data (id.), Appellant’s principal
argument urging patentability of claims 9 and 14 is also predicated on non-
functional descriptive material (i.e., the type or content of the data that is
determined or used). As discussed above, the informational content of non-
functional descriptive material is not entitled to weight in the patentability
analysis.
Nevertheless, we find no error with the Examiner’s finding that “Wu
discloses a processing means for incrementally processing . . . the data and
producing summary information or ‘state information’” since Wu’s
incremental has values and “‘SIT’” are “used to evaluate the authenticity of
the processed data” (Ans. 12). As the Examiner finds, “a hash value can
Appeal 2011-012746
Application 11/591,029

6
indeed be referred to as ‘state information’ as it comprises information
derived from and unique to a particular set of data and is used for indicating
a state of authenticity of said data” (Ans. 13).
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9
and 14 over Wu.
As for claims dependent claims 8, 13, and 18, although Appellant
concedes that Wu discloses “truncating entire packets from the codestream,”
Appellant contends that Wu does not anticipate “said adapting comprises
truncating a data packet” (App. Br. 14). We find no error with the
Examiner’s finding that “the prior art clearly cuts or removes one (or more)
data packet[s] . . . and thus truncates a data packet” (Ans. 15).
Thus, we find no error with the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 13,
and 18 over Wu. Appellant provides no argument for claims 2-7, 10-12, 15-
17, 19, and 20 separate from those of claims 1, 9, and 14 from which they
respectively depend (App. Br. 15). Accordingly, claims 2-7, 10-12, 15-17,
19, and 20 also fall with claims 1, 9, and 14.

IV. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
affirmed.
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

gvw