Ex Parte Katayama et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 12, 2014

10561706 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte TARO KATAYAMA, KAZUO FUJIMOTO,
TOSHIYA NORITAKE, and SHIN-ICHI SAEKI
_____________

Appeal 2012-007183
Application 10/561,706
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1, 4–9 and 12–16. Claims 2, 3, 10, and 11 have been
canceled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
Exemplary independent claim 1, which is reproduced below:
1. A data processor for playing back video and audio from a data
stream including video data and audio data, each of the video and
Appeal 2012-007183
Application 10/561,706
2

audio data being provided with time information representing its
presentation time, the data processor comprising:
a stream acquiring section for acquiring a first data stream and a
second data stream continuously;
an inserting section for inserting boundary-setting dummy data
into a data location where the first and second data streams switch
each other;
an analyzing section, which detects the dummy data, assigns
different pieces of identification information to the first and second
data streams, and associates the identification information with the
video and audio data of each said data stream;
a control section for controlling the respective output timings of
video represented by video data and audio represented by audio data
by reference to the time information of the video data and the time
information of the audio data that are associated with the same piece
of identification information; and
an output section for outputting the video and the audio at the
output timings, wherein the control section finds the respective
presentation end times of the video and the audio of the first data
stream according to the time information added to the video data and
the time information added to the audio data, and
if the presentation end time of the audio is later than that of the
video, the control section stops outputting the audio from the
presentation end time of the video through the presentation end time
of the audio, and
wherein the control section finds the respective presentation
start times of the video and the audio of the second data stream
according to the time information added to the video data and the time
information added to the audio data, and
if the presentation start time of the audio is earlier than that of
the video, the control section stops outputting the audio from the
presentation start time of the audio through the presentation start time
of the video.

Appeal 2012-007183
Application 10/561,706
3

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4–9, and 12–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Suzuki1 and Takamori2.
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Brief, the Examiner’s
rejection and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We concur
with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Takamori and Suzuki teaches “if the presentation end time of
the audio is later than that of the video, the control section stops outputting
the audio from the presentation end time of the video through the
presentation end time of the audio,” (emphases ours) (hereinafter “disputed
limitation”), as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in
independent claim 9. App. Br. 10, 11; Reply Br. 5.
The Examiner found:
Suzuki discloses that audio time stamp (i.e., audio time
information) of the information is used to determine the
position between the audio and video data and based on the
acquired information an audio signal is delayed (i.e., stopped).
The examiner notes Figure 5 where a delayed audio signal is
displayed that it synchronizes to video data. Figure 5 shows the
audio data where the timestamps can be shown at the beginning
of the audio data (i.e., presentation start time) and the end of the
audio data (i.e., presentation end time).
Ans. 11.
We disagree with the Examiner’s findings that the combination of
Takamori and Suzuki teaches the disputed limitation because the delayed

1 (US 5,808,722; Sept. 15, 1998).
Appeal 2012-007183
Application 10/561,706
4

audio signal in Figure 5 of Suzuki does not show the disputed limitation.
Specifically, the Examiner has not shown how Takamori and Suzuki are
interpreted to satisfy the disputed limitation, nor has the Examiner (Ans. 11)
answered Appellants’ particular arguments (App. Br. 10, 11; Reply Br. 5).3
Further, the Examiner has not explained how the delayed audio signal
in Figure 5 of Suzuki teaches the disputed limitation. Ans. 11.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 1 and 9 and dependent claims 4–8
and 12–16.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4–9, and 12–16 is
reversed.

REVERSED

tj

2 (US 6,041,067; Mar. 21, 2000).
3 See Appellants’ contention (Reply Br. 5):
However, in the case where the presentation end time of the audio is
later than that of the video in Suzuki, certainly Suzuki would not “stop
outputting” the audio as recited in claims 1 and 9 by “delaying” the
audio. For example, the presentation end time of the audio being later
than that of the video suggests that the audio already trails the video.
Therefore, there would be no reason for one having ordinary skill in
the art to propose further delaying the audio (purportedly by stopping)
as suggested by the Examiner. This would only cause the audio to
trail the video even further.