Ex Parte Gholmieh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2016

12426830 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/426,830 0412012009
15757 7590 03/30/2016
Qualcomm /Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
2200 Ross A venue
Suite 3600
Dallas, TX 75201-7932
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ralph Gholmieh
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.
QLXX.P0160US/11301040 5742
EXAMINER
ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2016 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
doipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RALPH GHOLMIEH, TAO TIAN,
and AN MEI CHEN
Appeal2014-006898
Application 12/426,830
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4--11, 13-18, 20-25, 27-32, 34--38, 40-44, 46-50, and 52-
56.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Qualcomm, Inc. (Br.
2).
2 Claims 3, 12, 19, 26, 33, 39, 45, and 51 have been canceled.
Appeal2014-006898
Application 12/426,830
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to systems and methods for encoding
block data to deliver content to a variety of receiving devices (Abstract).
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A method of encoding data, comprising:
accessing a set of source blocks representing content to
deliver to a device;
decomposing the set of source blocks into a set of high
priority blocks and a set of low priority blocks, wherein the
high priority blocks comprise data sufficient to render a reduced
resolution version of the content represented by the source
blocks and the low priority blocks comprise data sufficient to
allow the device to recover all of the content represented by the
source blocks when the high priority blocks and low priority
blocks are received with acceptably low error;
performing, by at least one processor, forward error
correction encoding on the set of high priority blocks and the
set of low priority blocks to generate a set of repair symbol
blocks;
combining the set of high priority blocks for a first time
period with the set of low priority blocks and the set of repair
symbol blocks for at least one other time period to generate an
aggregate transmission block for transmission to the device;
and
transmitting the aggregate transmission block to the
device, wherein the aggregate transmission block comprises the
set of high priority blocks for the first time period, the set of
low priority blocks for the at least one other time period, and
the set of repair symbol blocks for the at least one other time
period, wherein the at least one other time period comprises at
least one time period later than the first time period.
2
Appeal2014-006898
Application 12/426,830
The Examiner's Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4--11, 13-18, 20-25, 27-32, 34--
38, 40-44, 46-50, and 52-56 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Haskell (US 6,526, 177 B 1, issued Feb. 25, 2003) (Final Act. 3-24).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusion. 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
rebuttals to arguments expressed by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer
in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (see Ans. 3-11 ). We highlight the
following for emphasis.
Independent Claim 1
According to Appellants (Br. 11 ), claim l requires performing
''forward error correction encoding on the set of high priority blocks and
the set of low priority blocks to generate a set of repair symbol blocks,"
which is not taught by Haskell's transmission error correction. Appellants
contend the cited teachings of Haskell relate to I-type, P-type, and B-type
video frames for improving video compression rates, which correspond to
reducing an amount of data and is different from the claimed "error
correction" encoding (id.). Appellants specifically refer to their
Specification, paragraphs 27 and 35, and assert compression coding is
different from error correction coding which is performed on both high
priority blocks and low priority blocks (Br. 12). Appellants conclude
Haskell's encoding a base layer and an enhancement layer is not the same as
3
Appeal2014-006898
Application 12/426,830
the recited "forward error correction encoding" (Br. 13). Lastly, Appellants
contend any modification to Haskell to satisfy the claim limitation would be
improper because Haskell teaches away from the claim limitation (Br. 13-
14).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree with the
Examiner's findings and conclusion. As the Examiner finds, based on the
broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1, the recited high priority
blocks, low priority blocks, and repair symbol blocks are met by Haskell's
base and enhancement layers and the residual data that is used to complete
the image blocks (see Ans. 3). We also agree with the Examiner (Ans. 3-7)
that the features Appellants argue are not taught by Haskell, such as
redundant coding and the level of compression coding, are not specifically
recited in claim 1.
The Examiner further finds the base layer and the enhancement layer
encoders disclosed in column 6 of Haskell teach encoding a set of high
priority blocks and a set of low priority blocks as the basis for prediction or
"repair symbol blocks" (Ans. 6-7). We agree with this characterization of
Haskell's coding scheme which, as explained by the Examiner (Ans. 6), is
consistent with Appellants' disclosed I and P frames as high priority packets
and B frames as the low priority packets used in forward error correction
(see also Spec. i-fi-19 and 35).
Regarding Appellants' contention that the encoding disclosed in
Haskell is not the same as the recited "forward error correction encoding"
(Br. 13), we agree with the Examiner that the disputed claim limitation
encompasses the coding scheme disclosed in Haskell because Appellants
have not presented persuasive evidence in support of the narrower
4
Appeal2014-006898
Application 12/426,830
interpretation (see Ans. 8). Further, we do not consider Appellants'
discussion of Haskell's coding to be a substantive argument. Therefore,
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments or supporting
evidence that are persuasive of Examiner error regarding the aforementioned
disputed limitations. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Additionally, attorney "argument ... cannot take the place of evidence." In
re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116
F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney arguments or conclusory
statements are insufficient to rebut a prima facie case).
Further, Appellants' teaching away argument is misplaced because the
Examiner rejects the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Our reviewing court
has determined that "[t]eaching away is irrelevant to anticipation."
Seachange Int'!, Inc., v. C-Cor, Inc., 413 F.3d 1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
As such, the Examiner has not erred in finding that Haskell anticipates
independent claim 1.
Dependent Claim 6
Appellants contend the cited portions in column 4 and Figure 3 of
Haskell do not reasonably disclose the recited "receiving a selection from a
user of the device to change a content channel, and initiating the decoding of
at least the set of high priority blocks of an aggregate transmission block in a
current time period based on the selection" (Br. 14 ). Appellants specifically
argue that "one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it reasonable to
construe a mux/demux component as one that 'receives a selection from a
user of the device"' of claim 6 (id.). In response, the Examiner explains that
"[a] multiplexor/de-multiplexor is used in the art for selecting/directing
content according to user settings," and the broadest reasonable
5
Appeal2014-006898
Application 12/426,830
interpretation of the claim term allows '"the user' may be another device or
software routine" and "'the content channel' may be a memory block or a
block of transmitted data" (Ans. 9-10). We agree with the Examiner's
findings and conclusion. Therefore, Appellants' contentions do not persuade
us of Examiner error with respect to the rejection of claim 6.
Dependent Claim 8
Appellants contend the P-type and B-type frames of Haskell are
"frames within the same enhancement layer that are encoded differently"
and do not comprise "multiple sets of low-priority blocks," as recited in
claim 8 (Br. 15). Appellants specifically argue that the disclosure of
Haskell, in column 6, lines 21-30, "suggests that each frame in the
enhancement layer is coded with respect to a corresponding frame in the
base layer," but does not suggest the recited feature (id.).
We agree with the Examiner that the cited passage in column 8 of
Haskell's teaches the recited feature as the image frames that are made of
objects and image blocks corresponding to "lower level priority blocks" and
are predicted on a block by block basis (see Ans. 10). As further found by
the Examiner, the broadest reasonable interpretation of transmitting each
lower priority block in a different aggregate transmission block is met by the
disclosed objects and image blocks or sub-frames of Haskell which are
transmitted or received in blocks grouped as objects or layers (Ans. 10-11).
Thus, Appellants' contentions do not persuade us of Examiner error
with respect to the rejection of claim 8.
6
Appeal2014-006898
Application 12/426,830
Dependent Claim 9
Appellants contend the patentability of claim 9 based on the same
arguments raised for claim 8 and assert the cited portion of Haskell in
column 6 does not teach the recited "wherein at least one block of the set of
high priority sub-blocks, or at least one block of the set of low priority sub-
blocks, or at least one block of the set of repair symbol blocks are distributed
over multiple aggregate transmission blocks" (Br. 15-16). For the same
reasons discussed above regarding claim 8, we are not persuaded by
Appellants' contentions that Haskell's I-type, P-type, and B-type frames do
not comprise "multiple aggregate transmission blocks." Additionally, we
agree with the Examiner's finding that the disclosed frames constitute
embodiments of aggregate transmission blocks (Ans. 11 (citing Haskell, col.
8, 11. 35-37)). Therefore, Appellants' contentions do not persuade us of
Examiner error with respect to the rejection of claim 9.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that, because Haskell teaches all
the disputed claim limitations, the Examiner did not err in finding Haskell
anticipates the subject matter recited in claims 1, 6, 8, and 9 or the remaining
claims that are not argued separately (see Br. 10-16). Therefore, we sustain
the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--11, 13-18, 20-25, 27-32, 34--38, 40-44, 46-
50, and 52-56 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4--11,
13-18, 20-25, 27-32, 34--38, 40-44, 46-50, and 52-56.
7
Appeal2014-006898
Application 12/426,830
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
8