Ex Parte B¿se et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 12, 2016

12452350 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/452,350 03/02/2010
86528 7590 08/16/2016
Slayden Grnbert Beard PLLC
401 Congress Avenue
Suite 1900
Austin, TX 78701
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
03869.119145 2193
EXAMINER
WALKER, JARED T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2016 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):
trosson@sgbfirm.com
patent@sgbfirm.com
dallen@sgbfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GERO BASE and THOMAS RATHGEN
Appeal2014-008190
Application 12/452,350
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's twice rejecting claims 19-38, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). An Oral Hearing was held on July 15, 2016.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal2014-008190
Application 12/452,350
The present invention relates generally to a data aggregate formed of
multimedia independent fragments, each of the fragments is assigned a
respective explicit identifier for identifying that fragment. The identifier is
stored in a respective metadata structure associated with the fragment. See
Abstract.
Claim 19 is illustrative and reproduced below:
19. A method for encoding multimedia data,
compnsmg
forming a data aggregate encompassing
multimedia data from fragments that are mutually independent;
assigning to each of the fragments a fragment
identifier, unique in each case, identifying a corresponding
fragment and distinct from a file handle; and
storing, in a metadata structure assigned to the
corresponding fragment, the fragment identifier and at least one
of a preceding fragment identifier of an immediately
chronologically previous fragment and a succeeding fragment
identifier of an immediately chronologically following
fragment.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
RI. Claims 19-26 and 33-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over deCarmo (US 5,574,905, Nov. 12, 1996) and Costa
(US 2003/0169810 Al, Sept. 11, 2003);
R2. Claims 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over deCarmo, Costa, and Kleinman (US 2004/0113934 Al,
June 17, 2004); and
R3. Claims 31, 32, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over deCarmo, Costa, and Boyce (US 2006/0126733 Al,
2
Appeal2014-008190
Application 12/452,350
June 15, 2006).
ANALYSIS
Claims 19, 21, 23, and 33-35 over deCarmo and Costa
Issue 1: Did the Examiner provide an articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning for combining the teachings of deCarmo and
Costa?
Appellants contend that "[t]here is no need to add 'an associated
fragment header having ... fragment number data to identify the fragment'
as taught by Costa to what is taught by deCarmo, because the entries in the
file manipulation lists are already sequenced by time" (App. Br. 5), "[t]hus,
there would be no advantage gained by modifying deCarmo to use a
fragment identifier as disclosed by Costa" (id.).
In response, the Examiner finds:
The combination of deCarmo and Costa is used to teach the
assigning of unique fragment identifiers which is not related to
the time related parameters. For instance, when a gathered
collection of snapshots have the same identifiers, based on time
related parameters, a unique identifier would allow the user to
separate/classify the snapshots.
(Ans. 19).
Appellants reply that "there is nothing on record regarding any reason
why one of ordinary skill in the art would want to 'separate/ classify the
snapshots"' (Reply Br. 2). We find Appellants' contentions unavailing.
We point out that "[t]he motivation need not be found in the
references sought to be combined, but may be found in any number of
sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the
nature of the problem itself." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co.
3
Appeal2014-008190
Application 12/452,350
Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
"Having established that this knowledge was in the art, the [E]xaminer could
then properly rely, as put forth by the solicitor, on a conclusion of
obviousness 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of
ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular
reference."' In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969).
In other words, the Examiner need not pull the motivation from the
present record, but can rely on common knowledge and common sense of
the ordinarily skilled artisan. Here, the Examiner finds that although
deCarmo teaches "'snapshots' of the file descriptor list at selected periods of
time" (see deCarmo, col. 3, 11. 32-34), this technique can be further modified
by Costa's unique identifiers (see Costa, i-fi-131-33) in instances when the
snapshots share the same period of time, i.e., use a unique identifier that
would allow the user to separate/classify the snapshots further. Thus, we
disagree with Appellants' notion that "there would be no advantage gained
by modifying deCarmo to use a fragment identifier as disclosed by Costa"
(see App. Br. 5), because the Examiner has identified at least one instance,
i.e., duplicate time identifiers, where an unique identifier may be beneficial.
A benefit gained from a combination is a motivation to make such a
combination. See Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd., 684 F.3d 1253, 1262
(Fed.Cir.2012); cf Winner Int'! Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349
n. 8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (explaining that a Court can examine the benefits
gained and lost by making the combination in finding a motivation to
combine).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 19.
Appellants' arguments regarding the Examiner's rejection of independent
4
Appeal2014-008190
Application 12/452,350
claim 33 rely on the same arguments as for claim 19, and Appellants do not
argue separate patentability for dependent claims 21, 23, 34 and 35 (see
App. Br. 4---6). We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 21, 23, and 33-35.
Claims 31, 32, and 38 over deCarmo, Costa, and Boyce
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that Boyce teaches
decoding, as set forth in claim 3 1?
Appellants contend that "Boyce does not disclose ' [a] method for
decoding multimedia data' in paragraph [0048] ... No description of how,
i.e. the 'method' used to decode the 'IDS' is provided in paragraph [0048]
and none has been found elsewhere" (App. Br. 6)
The Examiner finds that Boyce teaches in paragraph [0048] an
independent decoding segment (IDS) and that "[t]his is a common part of
the MPEG2 standard" (Ans. 20). We agree with the Examiner.
For example, Boyce discloses "[a]n independent decoding segment
(IDS) ... is a segment which may be decoded accurately independent of any
other independent decoding segment. In the MPEG standard, independent
decoding segments include a sequence" (i-f 48). Although we agree with
Appellants that Boyce does not explicitly describes "how" the segments are
decoded, we find that neither does Appellants' claims 31, 32, and/or 38.
Instead, claim 31 merely recites, in the preamble, [a] method for decoding
(see claim 31 ). Similarly, claim 32 merely recites can be decoded and claim
38 merely recites [a] device for decoding (see claims 32 and 38). None of
the aforementioned claims detail how the decoding is performed. Instead,
5
Appeal2014-008190
Application 12/452,350
the claims merely require reading and processing at least one of the
preceding or succeeding fragment identifier (id.).
Similarly, Boyce discloses that it is known in the MPEG standard that
independent decoding segments include a sequence and that these segments
are delimited in the compressed bitstream by unique start codes (see Boyce,
i-f 48). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 31.
Appellants' arguments regarding the Examiner's rejection of claims 32 and
38 rely on the same arguments as for claim 31 (see App. Br. 6-7). We,
therefore, also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 32 and 38.
Claim 20 over deCarmo and Costa
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding that deCarmo teaches storing
time-related parameters, as set forth in claim 20?
Appellants contend that " [ n] one of these definitions [of parameters]
are equivalent to [ deCarmo' s] 'file manipulation lists that store 'snapshots'
of the file descriptor lists at selected periods of time"' (see App. Br. 7).
In response, the Examiner finds "the interpretation of parameter falls
under the [PHYS] definition [and] [t]he snapshot has time related
parameters" (Ans. 22). The Examiner further finds that "'parameter' is not
explicitly defined in the specification. Accordingly, the pending claims
must be 'given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification"' (id.). We agree with the Examiner.
Here, the Examiner highlights the "selected periods of time" aspect of
deCarmo's snapshots to read on the claimed time-related parameters in the
metadata structure. The recited "time-related parameters" is strikingly
similar (at least conceptually) to deCarmo's aforementioned selected periods
6
Appeal2014-008190
Application 12/452,350
of time teachings, and the Examiner's reliance on this limitation is therefore
persuasive, particularly because it represents data about data, i.e., time
information about the snapshots.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 20.
Claim 22 over deCarmo and Costa
Issue 4: Did the Examiner err in finding that deCarmo teaches a
metadata structure, as set forth in claim 22?
Appellants contend "that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
consider a 'linked-list' as equivalent to [a] 'metadata structure"' (App. Br.
8).
In response, the Examiner finds "the 'linked list' contains data about
the arrangement of the different parts of the data (i.e., data about data) which
is what the metadata is being used for in the claims as well" (Ans. 22). We
agree with the Examiner.
Metadata is any data about data and the Examiner has shown that
deCarmo's linked list is data that identifies the location of the next node (see
deCarmo, 5:20-22). This appears to be consistent with Appellants'
Specification (see i-f 28). As such, Appellants' contention fails to
persuasively rebut the Examiner's position that deCarmo' s linked list can be
seen as metadata.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 22.
7
Appeal2014-008190
Application 12/452,350
Claims 24-30, 36, and 37
Issue 4: Did the Examiner err in finding that deCarmo teaches storing
the fragment identifier as the preceding fragment identifier, as set forth in
claim 24?
Appellants contend "Fig. 7 of deCarmo does not show ... 'storing, in
the metadata structure for a final fragment which has no chronologically
succeeding fragment, the fragment identifier as the succeeding identifier, as
recited in claim 25 ... ," nor the limitations of claim 24 (see App. Br. 8).
Appellants further point out that they "do not disagree that 'the fragment
would not point to another fragment, but that doesn't mean that it would
point to itself as recited in claims 24 and 25" (Reply Br. 4). We agree with
Appellants.
Although the Examiner finds "that if there is no chronologically
succeeding fragment the fragment would not point to another fragment
therefore [it] would be the final fragment and would contain a fragment
identifier as discussed in the rejection of claim 1" (Ans. 23), the Examiner
fails to identify in the cited art both a fragment identifier and a
preceding/succeeding identifier that has the same value, as required by the
claims.
We are therefore constrained by the record before us to find that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 24, and claim 25 for similar reasons.
Because claims 26-30 depend from claim 25 either directly or indirectly,
and the Examiner has not shown that Kleinman makes up for the
deficiencies of deCarmo and Costa, we also reverse these claims. We also
note that claims 36 and 37 contain similar limitations. Accordingly, we
reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 24--30, 36, and 37.
8
Appeal2014-008190
Application 12/452,350
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections of claims 24--30, 36,
and 37.
We affirm the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections of claims 19-23, 31-35,
and 38.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9