Ex Parte Kenoyer et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 26, 2012

10105752 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/105,752 03/21/2002 Michael Kenoyer 199-0030US 6613
29855 7590 03/26/2012
WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI,
L.L.P.
20333 SH 249 6th Floor
HOUSTON, TX 77070
EXAMINER
RAMAKRISHNAIAH, MELUR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MICHAEL KENOYER and PATRICK VANDERWILT
____________________

Appeal 2010-000016
Application 10/105,752
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-000016
Application 10/105,752

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 50-69, which are all the claims remaining. Clams 1-49 are canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

The present invention relates to a videoconference system that can
automatically transmit first and second images from a local site to a remote
site. See generally Abstract.

Claim 50 is illustrative:
50. A videoconferencing system comprising:

a first input for receiving a live video image signal;

a second input for receiving a sound signal;

a third input for receiving an alternate image source
signal; and

a communications interface whereby the live video
image, sound, and alternate image may be transmitted to a
remote site through a carrier channel comprising a video
subchannel and an audio subchannel;

wherein the videoconference system automatically
optimizes video subchannel bandwidth between the live video
image, transmitted in a normal conference video stream, and the
alternate image, transmitted in an alternate video stream.

Appeal 2010-000016
Application 10/105,752

3

REJECTIONS
R1: Claims 50, 51, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Comstock (U.S.
6,704,769 B1, Mar. 9, 2004, filed Apr. 24, 2000) and Naito (U.S. 6,618,072
B2, Sep. 9, 2003, filed Sep. 28, 2001).
R2: Claims 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Comstock, Naito
and Ford (U.S. 5,764,279, Jun. 9, 1998).

ANALYSIS
Claims 50-66
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited art teaches or
suggests “the video conference system automatically optimizes video
subchannel bandwidth between the live video image, transmitted in a normal
conference video stream, and the alternate image, transmitted in an alternate
video stream,” as recited in claim 50?

Appellants contend that “[b]ecause Naito teaches only single stream
video transmission, Naito does not disclose anything relating to
automatically optimizing video subchannel bandwidth between the two
video streams.” (App. Br. 12.) Appellants further contend that “Naito
contains no teaching or suggestion of optimizing transmission bandwidth.”
(Id.) In addition, Appellants contend that Naito’s “optimizing coding
apparatus 90 does not inherently optimize the transmission bandwidth.” (Id.
at 13.)
Appeal 2010-000016
Application 10/105,752

4

The Examiner found that Naito discloses “coding only newly
i[n]putted region and not the already coded region which implies reducing
amount of information sent through the communication channel which
means reducing bandwidth of the channel . . . and optimizing the bandwidth
of the communication channel.” (Ans. 12.)

While we agree with the Examiner that Naito reduces the amount of
information transmitted with its combined image processing (see Naito,
Abstract), we do not find and the Examiner has not established that Naito
reduces, i.e., optimizes, bandwidth between two video streams as set forth in
claim 50. Claim 50 recites, inter alia, automatically optimizing video
subchannel bandwidth between the live video image, transmitted in a normal
conference video stream, and the alternate image, transmitted in an alternate
video stream. Hence, two video streams are required (and optimizing the
bandwidth therebetween), and the Examiner has only directed our attention
to a single video stream containing a combined image. In Naito, this single
video stream (i.e., a combined image) is fed into a coding unit, allowing less
power consumption overall. (See Naito, col. 3 ll. 6-44.) Thus, at best we
find that Naito suggests optimizing the bandwidth of a single video stream.
However, the Examiner has fallen short of establishing that Naito teaches or
suggests optimizing the bandwidth between two video streams.
We are therefore constrained by the record before us to find that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 50 and claims 51-66 for similar reasons, as
they all contain a commensurate limitation.

Appeal 2010-000016
Application 10/105,752

5
Claims 67-69
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding the prior art teaches or
suggests “an alternate video stream that contains a live image only when the
alternate image is changing and, at all other times, when the alternate image
is static, contains a static image” as recited in claim 67?

Appellants contend that “Naito contains no teaching or suggestion of
transmitting or receiving two image streams,” as “Naito teaches a single
video stream that combines a video image from camera 12 and a graphic
image from pen input 14” (App. Br. 15). Appellants, thus, argue that “there
can necessarily be no teaching or suggestion of a second stream that contains
a live image only when the alternate image is changing and a static image at
all other times” (id.). We disagree with Appellants.

Initially, we note that unlike claim 50 mentioned above, claim 67 does
not require two video streams. Instead, claim 67 merely requires a single
“alternate video stream” that contains a live image when changes are
happening and a static image at all other times. (See Claim 67.) Thus,
Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 67.
The Examiner found that Naito discloses the above-mentioned
limitation as it discloses a handwritten image with or without movement.
Specifically, Naito discloses:
In a second embodiment coding region information 53
may be one of threefold such as moving picture region,
handwritten region without movement and handwritten region
with movement. The moving picture region is coded
conventionally, the handwritten region without movement is
Appeal 2010-000016
Application 10/105,752

6
processed as a skip block, and the handwritten region with
movement is processed as a region of motion vector “0.”
(Col. 3, ll. 26-32).
Appellants do not respond to these specific findings. Moreover,
arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Cf. In re
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the
function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by
an appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior art.”).
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
erred in finding that the combination of Comstock and Naito teaches or
suggests the above-noted limitations of representative claim 67.
The Examiner (1) rejects claim 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Comstock, Naito and Ford and (2) claim 69 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Comstock and Naito. However, Appellants
did not present separate arguments for patentability for each of claims 68
and 69 that depend from independent claim 67. Thus, for the reasons
discussed above, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 67 and
claims 68-69, which fall therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 50, 51, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, and
65, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Comstock and Naito is
reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 67 and 69 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Comstock and Naito is affirmed.
Appeal 2010-000016
Application 10/105,752

7
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, and 66,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Comstock, Naito and Ford
is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 68, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Comstock, Naito and Ford 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).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

peb