Ex Parte Leprovost et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

12672830 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/672,830 02/28/2011
48116 7590 06/29/2016
FAY SHARPE/LUCENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yann Leprovost
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.
LUTZ 201l15US01 2926
EXAMINER
WAQAS, SAAD A
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 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):
docketing@faysharpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YANN LEPROVOST, BESSEM SAY ADI, and
MARIE LINE ALBERI-MOREL
Appeal2015-002138
Application 12/672,830
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, ERIC B. CHEN, and AMBER L. HAGY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
r"IT TT""""1-.i. T ' 1 • • , , • T'lo , , T 1
Gtt1:1,l''>J, Aamznzsrranve rarem Juage.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-00213 8
Application 12/672,830
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-3 and 5-8. Claim 4 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to a transmission device as a component
of a time multiplexing transmission infrastructure with multiple channels
and different transmission time slots for multimedia contents, such
multimedia contents arranged in two complementary data layers. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitation in italics:
1. A method for transmission, via a time multiplexing
transmission infrastructure of multimedia contents for transmitting at
least one channel and adapted for transmission in transmission time
slots, such multimedia contents being arranged in at least two
complementary data layers,
wherein a time slot is associated to each complementary layer
constituting a multimedia content of a channel, so as to transmit
portions of such complementary multimedia content layers during the
time slots respectively associated to them, and
wherein said complementary layers comprise a base layer and
at least one enhancement layer.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Mizuta (WO 2005/117444 Al; Dec. 8, 2005).
ANALYSIS
First, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 5; see
also Reply Br. 3.) that Mizuta does not describe the limitation "wherein said
complementary layers comprise a base layer and at least one enhancement
layer," as recited in independent claim 1.
2
Appeal 2015-00213 8
Application 12/672,830
The Examiner found that the hierarchical coding unit of Mizuta,
which separates low frequency data components and high frequency data
components, corresponds to the limitation "wherein said complementary
layers comprise a base layer and at least one enhancement layer." (Final
Act. 3--4; see also Ans. 3--4.) We agree with Examiner.
Mizuta relates to a digital broadcasting system, in particular, "a
method of transmitting and receiving digital broadcasts and digital data
broadcasts suitable for mobile terminals." (P. 1, 11. 6-8.) Figure 3 of Mizuta
illustrates transmission apparatus 100 for transmitting broadcast stream 8 to
network 30, which includes multiplexing source 1 and hierarchical coding
unit 2 for service A. (P. 9, 1. 32 to P. 10, 1. 5.) Mizuta explains that
"hierarchical coding unit 2 separates the inputted source 1 into high
frequency component data and low frequency component data according to
the frequencies (such as spatial frequencies and audio frequencies) of image
and audio data." (P. 10, 11. 13-16.) Because hierarchical coding unit 2 of
Mizuta separates inputted source 1 into high frequency component data and
low frequency component data, Mizuta discloses the limitation "wherein
said complementary layers comprise a base layer and at least one
enhancement layer."
Appellants argue that "the cited passage of Mizuta relates to
separately coding image data and audio data (i.e., different types of data, and
not different levels of quality (e.g., basic and enhanced as in claim 1) of the
same data), whereas amended claim 1 sets forth a base layer and an
enhancement layer, which are of different levels of quality." (App. Br. 5
(emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 3.) Contrary to Appellants'
arguments, Mizuta explains that "hierarchical coding unit 2 separates the
3
Appeal 2015-00213 8
Application 12/672,830
inputted source 1 into high frequency component data and low frequency
component data according to the frequencies (such as spatial frequencies and
audio frequencies) of image and audio data," or that both image and audio
data are both separated into high and low frequency components.
Appellants have not persuasively distinguished the claimed "complementary
layers comprise a base layer and at least one enhancement layer" from data
separated into high and low frequency components as described by Mizuta.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Mizuta describes the
limitation "wherein said complementary layers comprise a base layer and at
least one enhancement layer."
Second, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 5---6;
see also Reply Br. 4) that Mizuta does not describe the limitation "so as to
transmit portions of such complementary multimedia content layers during
the time slots respectively associated to them," as recited in independent
claim 1.
The Examiner found that the data burst of Mizuta, in which lower
layer code follows upper layer code, as illustrated in Figure 3, such that the
data burst includes Li T(l) and Li T(2) information, corresponds to the
limitation "so as to transmit portions of such complementary multimedia
content layers during the time slots respectively associated to them." (Final
Act. 3; see also Ans. 4--5.)
Mizuta explains that "the hierarchical coding unit 2 outputs,
separately, an upper layer code 3 (first layer code) obtained by performing
highly efficient coding on the high frequency components and a lower layer
code 4 (second layer code) obtained by performing highly efficient coding
on the lower frequency components." (P. 10, 11. 18-23.) Figure 3 ofMizuta
4
Appeal 2015-00213 8
Application 12/672,830
illustrates upper layer code 3 as a separate time segment from lower layer
code 4. Similarly, Mizuta further explains that "[t]he codes are concatenated
in the data burst 6 so that the lower layer code 4 follow the upper layer
code 3." (P. 11, 11. 1-2.) Mizuta further explains that data burst 6 includes a
synchronization code for upper layer code 501 having Li T(l) information
and a synchronization code for lower layer code 502 having Li T(2)
information (p. 20, 11. 6-17) which "indicates the relative time period from
the temporal position at which the Li T information is inserted up to the
appearance of the next data burst" (p. 20, 11. 19-21 ). Because Mizuta
explains that upper layer code 3 having Li T(l) information is a separate time
segment from lower layer code 4 having Li T(2) information, Mizuta
discloses the limitation "so as to transmit portions of such complementary
multimedia content layers during the time slots respectively associated to
them."
Appellants argue "claim 1 recites transmitting the base layer and the
enhancement layers in separate time slots, whereas Mizuta teaches
transmission of the upper and lower layer code in the same burst." (App.
Br. 5 (emphases omitted).) Contrary to Appellants' arguments, Figure 3 of
Mizuta illustrates that upper layer code 3 (i.e., high frequency components)
and lower layer code 4 (i.e., lower frequency components) have separate
timing.
Appellants also argue "Li Tl and Li T2 [in data burst 6] do not define a
temporal position of the high frequency and low frequency data components,
but rather are inserted into the respective data components so that a decoder
can predict the next data burst regardless of which data component is
decoded." (Reply Br. 4.) Contrary to Appellants' arguments, Mizuta
5
Appeal 2015-00213 8
Application 12/672,830
expressly explains that upper layer code 3 having Li T(l) information is a
separate time segment from lower layer code 4 having Li T(2) information.
(P.11,ll.1-2,p. 20,ll.6-17, 19-21,Fig.3.)
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Mizuta describes the
limitation "so as to transmit portions of such complementary multimedia
content layers during the time slots respectively associated to them."
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims 2 and 3 depend from claim 1, and Appellants
have not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to
these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b ), for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claim 1.
Independent claims 5 and 8 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
We sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 8, as well as dependent claims 6 and
7, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-8 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6