Ex Parte Boyce et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 18, 2014

10560477 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JILL MACDONALD BOYCE,
ALEXANDROS MICHAEL TOURAPIS,
and JEFFREY ALLEN COOPER
____________

Appeal 2011-011145
Application 10/560,477
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOHHNY A. KUMAR, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-011145
Application 10/560,477

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
finally rejecting claims 1-15, all the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The present invention relates generally to reducing the perceived
delay for the initial display of decoded video content following a channel
change. Spec. 1:12-14.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A video encoder for receiving input pictures and
providing compressed stream data, the encoder comprising:
a normal encoding portion for receiving input pictures
and providing normal stream data;
a lower-quality encoding portion for receiving input
pictures and providing channel change stream data; and
a multiplexor in signal communication with each of the
normal and lower-quality portions for receiving and combining
the normal and channel change data streams.

Appellants appeal the following rejections1:
R1. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nakagawa (EP 0 883 299 A2, Dec. 9, 1998) and
Barrett (US Patent Pub. 2004/0034864 A1, Feb. 19, 2004);

1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 (see Ans. 3).
Appeal 2011-011145
Application 10/560,477

3
R2. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakagawa, Barrett, and Nozawa (US 6,587,505 B1, July
1, 2003); and
R3. Claims 6, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nakagawa, Barrett, and well-known prior art.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’
arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of the references teaches or suggests a
multiplexor, particularly a multiplexor for receiving and combining the
normal and channel change data streams.
As identified by Appellants, “Nakagawa is solely concerned with
outputting ONLY ONE OF a high resolution picture OR a low resolution
picture, and hence never forms a combination stream” (App. Br. 22).
Appellants further contend that “similar to Nakagawa, Barrett does not
disclose multiplexing and/or otherwise combining a normal stream with a
channel change stream” (id. at 25). In response, the Examiner finds that
“Nakagawa teaches combining high resolution and low resolution video
streams via switching” (Ans. 17). The Examiner concluded that
“‘[c]ombining’ has been reasonably interpreted to mean that multiple inputs
are output over a single line, which occurs in Nakagawa” (id. at 19). We
disagree with the Examiner.
The usual and ordinary meaning of multiplexed is transmitting several
messages simultaneously on the same channel. Webster’s Ninth New
Appeal 2011-011145
Application 10/560,477

4
Collegiate Dictionary, 1990, p.779. Appellants’ Specification similarly
indicates that “[t]he multiplexor arranges the transmission time of the coded
pictures such that the channel change stream I pictures are interspersed with
the normal stream coded pictures” (Spec. 9:14-16). As such, we find that
the claimed “multiplexor” and/or “combining” require transmitting several
messages simultaneously interspersed therewith.
Nakagawa discloses using “a selective reading-out unit 5 to
selectively read out the high-resolution picture . . . or the low-resolution
picture” (col. 4, ll. 54-58). In other words, Nakagawa transmits (i.e.,
switches between) either a high-resolution picture or a low-resolution
picture. The Examiner has not shown that Nakagawa’s selective reading-out
unit is a multiplexor consistent with Appellants’ defined multiplexor,
particularly a multiplexor for combining (i.e., interspersing) the normal and
channel change data streams.
Thus, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Nakagawa teaches
the claimed multiplexing and/or combining, as recited in each of the
independent claims. The Examiner has not found any of the other references
of record teach this feature. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 1-15.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-15 is reversed.

REVERSED

msc