Ex Parte Boyce et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 4, 2013

10558039 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JILL MACDONALD BOYCE,
DANIEL RICHARD GIRELLINI, and PENG YIN1
____________________

Appeal 2011-005325
Application 10/558,039
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Non-
Final Rejection of claims 1-36, all claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 The Real Party in Interest is Thomson Licensing. App. Br. 4.
Appeal 2011-005325
Application 10/558,039

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellants’ “invention is directed towards video encoders and
decoders, and more particularly, towards an apparatus and method for
watermark insertion and/or detection.” Spec. 1:12-14 (“FIELD OF THE
INVENTION”).
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal (emphasis added to disputed limitations):
1. In a video encoder, a method of including a digital
fingerprint in a compressed video bitstream, the method
comprising:
representing a unique identification code as a sequence of
bits; and
embedding each bit of the unique identification code into
a corresponding coded block of the compressed video bitstream
by matching a parity of the number of coded coefficients in the
block to the bit value of the unique identification code.

2 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
Sep. 7, 2010); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Dec. 8, 2010); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Nov. 24, 2010); Non-Final Office Action (“NFOA,”
mailed May 7, 2010); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed
Nov. 22, 2005).
Appeal 2011-005325
Application 10/558,039

3
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Lucas US 6,546,113 B1 Apr. 8, 2003
Langelaar US 2005/0089189 A1 Apr. 28, 2005
Kot US 7,324,662 B2 Jan. 29, 2008
Cross, D.; Mobasseri, B.G.; “Watermarking for self-authentication of
compressed video,” Proceedings, 2002 International Conference on Image
Processing, 2002, vol.2, pp. II-913- II-916 vol.2, 2002.
Fu et al., “Data Hiding in Halftone Images with Parity Coding,” Proc.
SPIE vol. 4314 (2001), pp. 360-368.
Rejections on Appeal
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-23, 25, 27-33, and 36 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Langelaar
and Fu. Ans. 4.
2. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Langelaar, Fu, and Lucas. Ans. 10.
3. Claims 6, 34, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Langelaar, Fu, and Kot.
Ans. 10.
4. Claims 24 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Langelaar, Fu, and Cross.
Ans. 12.
Appeal 2011-005325
Application 10/558,039

4
ISSUE
Appellants argue (App. Br.; Reply Br.) that the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Langelaar and Fu is in error. These contentions present us
with the following issue:
Dispositive Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the
combination of Langelaar and Fu teaches or suggests the limitation of
“embedding each bit of the unique identification code into a corresponding
coded block of the compressed video bitstream by matching a parity of the
number of coded coefficients in the block to the bit value of the unique
identification code,” as recited in claim 1, and as similarly recited in all
claims on appeal?
ANALYSIS
We only consider those arguments actually made by Appellants in
reaching this Decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to
be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants proposed the following claim groupings (App. Br. 11):
1) Claims 2, 4-5, 7-23, and 25 stand or fall together
with claim 1;
2) Claims 28-32 stand or fall with claim 27;
3) Claim 33 stands or falls alone;
4) Claim 36 stands or falls alone;
5) Claim 3 stands or falls alone;
Appeal 2011-005325
Application 10/558,039

5
6) Claim 6 stands or falls alone;
7) Claim 34 stands or falls alone;
8) Claim 35 stands or falls alone; and
9) Claims 24 and 26 stand or fall together.

However, we note Appellants only provided substantive arguments
with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 16-23. Appellants appear to offer separate
and substantive arguments for patentability of claims 3, 6, 24, 26, 27, and
33-36, but instead, Appellants merely repeat arguments directed to the
combination of Langelaar and Fu cited in the rejection of claim 1. App. Br.
14 et seq.; and see Reply Br. 10 et seq. While using an argument for
patentability of a first claim as a cut-and-paste argument for a second claim
might outwardly appear to be a separate argument for patentability of the
second claim, such a cut-and-paste argument is not in fact an argument for
“separate patentability.”
Thus, we find that the rejection of all claims on appeal turn on a
common issue, i.e., the dispositive issue identified above with respect to
independent claim 1.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions with respect to claim 1, and
we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons and
rebuttals set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellants’ Arguments. However, we highlight and address specific
findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows.
Appeal 2011-005325
Application 10/558,039

6
Appellants contend none of the cited references teach or suggest
“embedding each bit of the unique identification code into a corresponding
coded block of the compressed video bitstream by matching a PARITY of
the number of coded coefficients in the block to the bit value of the
unique identification code,” as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br.
16. Further, Appellants assert, “parity refers to ‘the condition existing
between two integers that are both odd or both even,’” and that “the parity of
the number of coded coefficients in each block, i.e., where parity is either
odd or even, is matched to a particular bit of a unique identification code
(Claims 1 and 36) or fingerprint sequence (Claims 33 and 27).” App. Br. 17
(citing Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second
College Edition, David B. Guralnik, Ed. in Chief, William Collins + World
Publishing Co., Inc., 1974, p. 1033).
Appellants further contend, Langelaar states the amount by which a
signal sample is modified is determined by inverting its sign, which
allegedly shows that the sign (whether - or +) relates to magnitude/quantity
and not to whether something is even or odd. App. Br. 18 (citing Langelaar,
¶ [0007]). Further, “Langelaar does not include even one occurrence of
the word ‘parity’ or the word ‘odd’” (id.) and, in contrast to Appellants’
approach involving “parity,” Langelaar uses signs (- and +) which relate to
magnitude/quantity, and not to parity. Id.
With respect to the Examiner’s citation to Fu, Appellants allege Fu is
directed to private watermarks, since Fu’s approach requires the original
image in watermark decoding and,
Appeal 2011-005325
Application 10/558,039

7
[i]n contrast, we note that the approach recited in the pending
claims pertain to a public watermark, since the recited coded
coefficients clearly pertain to a block-based video compression
scheme, where it is well known to those of ordinary skill in the
art that the original image is not available at the decoder, but
rather the original image is reconstructed at the decoder by
adding the hereinafter mentioned residue to a reference image.
App. Br. 20. Appellants further contend,
Fu does not appear to be usable with block-based video
compression schemes that subtract a reference image from an
input image to obtain the difference therewith (called the
residual), where the difference is then transformed and
quantized to obtain coefficients as recited in the pending claims.
Additionally, as mentioned, Fu is directed to a private
watermark, while the pending claims are directed to a public
watermark.
App. Br. 21.
Appellants also contend, because Langelaar involves embedding a
watermark in an image by inverting the signs of signal samples without the
use of parity, and Fu uses parity for pixels in a block, the principle of
operation of Langelaar would be changed by the modification suggested by
the Examiner, such that the modification would be non-obvious. App.
Br. 23.
In response to Appellants’ various contentions, the Examiner finds
Langelaar, similar to Appellants’ invention, discloses a method for
embedding a watermark into a media signal such as MPEG video by
encoding watermark samples into code words. Ans. 13 (citing Langelaar
¶¶ [0001], [0008], and [0020]). The Examiner further finds
Appeal 2011-005325
Application 10/558,039

8
[a] key step in embedding watermark or auxiliary data into a
compressed bitstream is to ensure that the length of the original
sequence remains the same when code words are replaced . . .
[and] Langelaar does this by inverting the sign of the sign bit of
signal to be embedded depending on the sign of the respective
sample of the watermark.
Ans. 13 (citing Langelaar ¶ [0022]).
With respect to Appellants’ arguments against Fu, specifically that Fu
is directed to private watermarks (App. Br. 21), the Examiner finds that
Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim
since a “public” watermark, in distinction from a “private” watermark is not
claimed. Ans. 14. Further, in response to Appellants’ contention that Fu is
not applicable to block-based video compression (App. Br. 19), the
Examiner finds,
[a]though Fu is directed to images and the current invention is
directed to video, it is well known in the art that [a] video
watermarking method can be applied to image and visa [sic]
versa while yielding predictable results because a video is a set
of images displayed in sequence.
Ans. 15.
With respect to Appellants’ further contentions that Fu is unusable
with block-based video compression schemes, we note Appellants’
assertions amount to unsupported attorney argument, not evidence, and
therefore we give them little weight. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470
(Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-140 (Fed. Cir.
1996).
Appeal 2011-005325
Application 10/558,039

9
In addition, the Examiner responds to Appellants’ allegations (cited,
supra) that the proposed combination of Langelaar and Fu would result in an
impermissible change in Langelaar’s operating principles, the Examiner
finds Langelaar makes sure that code words of the bit stream maintain their
original size, and that the use of a parity check to ensure that no information
is changed during data transmission is well known in the art. Ans. 15. The
Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to modify the teachings of Langelaar with Fu to accomplish such
a known parity check. Id.
Therefore, based upon the findings above, we do not find error in the
Examiner’s reliance on the combined teachings and suggestions of
Langelaar and Fu to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 1, and
the Examiner’s resulting legal conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner’s
characterization of the cited art and related claim construction. Therefore,
we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1.
With respect to independent claims 27, 33, and 36, all rejected on the
same basis as claim 1, and all containing substantially similar limitations as
claim 1, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) because we find the dispositive issue to be the same for
independent claims 27, 33, and 36 as for independent claim 1. Taken
together with the related analysis of claim 1, supra, we find that the
Examiner has rebutted each of Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 17 and 19)
in the Answer by a preponderance of the evidence. Ans. 16-17.
Appeal 2011-005325
Application 10/558,039

10
Further, Appellants do not separately and substantively argue
patentability for dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 7-23, 25, and 28-32. Instead,
Appellants merely allege patentability based upon their respective
independent claims. App. Br. 16. Except for our ultimate decision, we do
not discuss these dependent claims further herein.
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claim 3 over Langelaar, Fu, and Lucas
Appellants merely repeat arguments directed to claim 1, and then
assert Lucas does not make up for Langelaar and Fu’s purported
deficiencies. App. Br. 26-32. While using an argument for patentability of a
first claim as a cut-and-paste argument for a second claim might outwardly
appear to be a separate argument for patentability of the second claim, such
a cut-and-paste argument is not in fact an argument for “separate
patentability.” Thus, we find the dispositive issue to be the same as for
independent claim 1, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 6, 34, and 35 over Langelaar, Fu, and Kot
Appellants merely repeat arguments directed to claim 1, and then
assert Kot does not make up for Langelaar and Fu’s purported deficiencies.
App. Br. 32-41. As discussed above, using an argument for patentability of
a first claim as a cut-and-paste argument for a second claim is not a separate
argument for patentability. Thus, we find the dispositive issue to be the
same as for independent claim 1, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 6, 34, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2011-005325
Application 10/558,039

11
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 24 and 26 over Langelaar, Fu, and Cross
Appellants merely repeat arguments directed to claim 1, and then
assert Cross does not make up for Langelaar and Fu’s purported
deficiencies. App. Br. 42-50. As above, such a cut-and-paste argument for
a second claim is not a separate argument for patentability. Thus, we find
the dispositive issue to be the same as for independent claim 1, and we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24 and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to all rejections of claims 1-36
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the prior art combinations of record, and the
rejections 1-4 are sustained.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-36 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) (2011).
AFFIRMED

tj