10074765 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2013)

Ex Parte Banerji et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 19, 2013

10074765 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2013)

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. 10/074,765 02/12/2002 INV001Ashish Banerji PD-201157 9961 20991 7590 03/20/2013 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION CA / LA1 / A109 2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245 EXAMINER VO, TUNG T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/20/2013 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 ASHISH BANERJI and KUMAR SWAMINATHAN ____________ Appeal 2012-012635 Application 10/074,765 1 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant(s) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-20 and 22-26. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 The real party in interest is The DIRECTV Group, Inc. 2 Claim 21 has been cancelled. Appeal 2012-012635 Application 10/074,765 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is a method and system for compressing video by grouping video frames that are only between consecutive I-frames into a video data set of non-infra video frames, splitting the video data set into a plurality of homogeneous files, and individually compressing each of the homogeneous files (Figs. 1, 3; Spec. 2, 3, 5, 7, and 16; Abstract). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. A method of compressing video, comprising: grouping video frames that are only between consecutive I-frames into a video data set; splitting the video data set into a plurality of homogeneous files; and individually compressing each of the homogeneous files. REFERENCES Gonzales US 5,414,469 May 9, 1995 Kikuchi US 5,719,646 Feb. 17, 1998 Yamauchi US 5,729,302 Mar. 17, 1998 Tahara US 5,805,225 Sept. 8, 1998 Nickerson US 5,926,222 July 20, 1999 Sazzad US 6,122,321 Sept. 19, 2000 Niihara US 6,256,344 B1 July 3, 2001 Lei US 6,272,180 B1 Aug. 7, 2001 Banerji US 6,400,289 B1 June 4, 2002 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 13, 14, 16/1, 16/2, 16/13, 16/14, 17-20, and 22-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Gonzales. Claims 3 and 16/3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gonzales in view of Niihara and Tahara. Appeal 2012-012635 Application 10/074,765 3 Claims 4 and 16/4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gonzales in view of Yamauchi. Claims 5, 7, 16/5, and 16/7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gonzales in view of Tahara. Claims 6 and 16/6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gonzales in view of Sazzad and Tahara. Claims 8 and 16/8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gonzales in view of Nickerson. Claims 9, 10, 16/9, and 16/10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gonzales in view of Banerji. Claims 11, 12, 16/11, and 16/12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gonzales in view of Lei. Claims 15 and 16/15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gonzales in view of Kikuchi. ISSUES Appellants argue that the Examiner improperly interpreted “grouping video frames … into a video data set” such that a single frame constitutes a video data set (App. Br. 8). Gonzales’s distinction between a single picture and a group of pictures (GOP), according to Appellants, is further evidence that a single frame may not constitute a video data set (App. Br. 9). Appellants further contend that, contrary to the claim, Gonzales teaches that additional I-pictures can appear within the GOP (App. Br. 10). Appellants argue that the Examiner relies on Figure 5 of Gonzales to show a grouping of video frames between consecutive I-frames, but then improperly relies on disparate teachings in “other embodiments of the Appeal 2012-012635 Application 10/074,765 4 reference,” such that Gonzales does not anticipate the claimed invention (App. Br. 11-12). Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issues: 1. Does Gonzales teach grouping video frames that are only between consecutive I-frames into a video data set? 2. Does Gonzales teach splitting the video data set into a plurality of homogeneous files? PRINCIPLES OF LAW “A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art reference.” See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). ANALYSIS CLAIMS 1, 2, 13, 14, 16/1, 16/2, 16/13, 16/14, 17-20, AND 22-26 We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Gonzales teaches grouping video frames that are only between consecutive I-frames into a video data set. Figure 5 of Gonzales illustrates just such a video data set, composed of frames “BBP BBP BB” (Ans. 18). As a result of our agreement, we need not reach Appellants’ arguments that a single video frame cannot constitute a video data set. We further agree with the Examiner’s finding that Gonzales teaches splitting a video data set into a plurality of homogeneous files. Gonzales illustrates decomposing a macroblock into “8x8 Y1, 8x8 Y2, 8x8 Y3, 8x8 Y4, 8x8 Cb, and 8x8 Cr blocks” (Ans. 18; Gonzales, Fig. 6). Appeal 2012-012635 Application 10/074,765 5 We are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellants’ argument that Gonzales teaches “additional I-pictures can appear within the GOP” (App. Br. 10). We find that this general statement, without more, does not negate the teaching value of the specific example illustrated in Figure 5, upon which the Examiner relies. We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner may not rely on teachings from Figure 5 of Gonzales while also citing teachings in Figures. 1-4, 6, 11, and 13a (App. Br. 11), or that the Examiner has improperly read “the same claim feature on different embodiments of the reference” (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 5). The portions of Gonzales relied upon by the Examiner do not constitute “different embodiments” or otherwise incompatible alternative teachings. For example, Figures 1-4 “illustrate layers of compressed data within the video compression layer of the MPEG- 1 data stream.” Figure 5 “illustrates the two-level motion compensation among pictures in a GOP employed in the MPEG-1 standard.” Figure 11 “is a block diagram of a flexible scalable video compression encoder implementation that can be used with the present invention” (col. 8, l. 49 – col. 9, l. 9). These portions of Gonzales are simply parts of an overall system, disclosed as being usable together. Last, we note that Appellants’ argument that the Examiner never explains why the Macro Blocks of Gonzales are considered to be “homogeneous,” presented for the first time in the Reply Brief, is not entitled to consideration (Reply Br. 5). No cause for its belated presentation Appeal 2012-012635 Application 10/074,765 6 has been shown. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473-74 (BPAI 2010) (“informative” 3 ). We find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 13, 14, 16/1, 16/2, 16/13, 16/14, 17-20, and 22-26 under § 102 as being anticipated by Gonzales. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection. CLAIMS 3-12, 15, 16/3-16/12, AND 16/15 Appellants’ sole argument with respect to the § 103 rejections of these claims is that the various secondary references cure the previously argued deficiencies of Gonzales (App. Br. 13-16). As explained with reference to claim 1, supra, we find that Gonzales is not deficient with respect to anticipating the claimed invention. Thus, we will sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 3-12, 15, 16/3-16/12, and 16/15, for the reasons expressed with respect to claim 1. CONCLUSIONS 1. Gonzales teaches grouping video frames that are only between consecutive I-frames into a video data set. 2. Gonzales teaches splitting the video data set into a plurality of homogeneous files. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 and 22-26 is affirmed. 3 The “informative” status of this opinion is noted at the following Board website: http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/decisions/inform/index.jsp. Appeal 2012-012635 Application 10/074,765 7 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 kis