Ex Parte Linzer et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 22, 2012

10939786 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 22, 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.
10/939,786 09/13/2004 Elliot N. Linzer 04-0769 1496.00375 6473
22501 7590 06/25/2012
CHRISTOPHER P MAIORANA, PC
LSI Corporation
24840 HARPER
SUITE 100
ST CLAIR SHORES, MI 48080
EXAMINER
LUONG, ALAN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2012 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 ELLIOT N. LINZER and AARON G. WELLS
________________

Appeal 2009-012649
Application 10/939,786
Technology Center 2400
_________________

Before THOMAS S. HAHN, ERIC B. CHEN, and JOHN A. EVANS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants invoke our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final
rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.

Appeal 2009-012649
Application 10/939,786

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants claim an apparatus and method for encoding an
information data stream, e.g., audio, video, etc., to generate a compressed bit
stream in which is embed private and/or enhancement information, e.g.,
repeated frame(s), judder, spatial and/or temporal analysis, commercial
detection, filtering, image enhancement, etc. (Spec. 15:1 – 16:2; Fig. 4).
Appealed independent claim 1 is exemplary and reads:

1. A method for conveying private information or enhancement
information in a compressed bit stream comprising the steps of:

generating a single compressed bit stream by encoding a first data
stream, wherein encoding said first data stream comprises making a
plurality of encoding choices; and

controlling the encoding choices made based upon a second data
stream comprising one or both of said private information and said
enhancement information.

Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following evidence:
1

Nagaoka US 2001/0012322 A1 Aug. 9, 2001
Chen US 2003/0137601 A1 July 24, 2003
Kim US 2003/0142098 A1 July 31, 2003
Li US 2005/0275752 A1 Dec. 15, 2005
The Examiner, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), rejected:
1. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, and 11 as being obvious over Nagaoka and Li
(Ans. 3-6);

1
Effective filing dates for this cited evidence precede Appellants’ earliest
effective filing date and are not at issue.
Appeal 2009-012649
Application 10/939,786

3
2. Claim 5 and 12-22 as being obvious over Nagaoka, Li and Kim (Ans.
6, 8-11); and
3. Claims 8 and 9 as being obvious over Nagaoka, Li, and Chen (Ans. 6-
8).
Appellants’ Pivotal Contention
Appellants group and separately argue multiple rejected claims (see
App. Br. 14-33). Appellants contend, inter alia, that the Examiner erred in
concluding all of the independent claims 1, 8, 10, 12, and 19 are obvious.
Pivotally, Appellants argue that the relied on Nagaoka and Li references
alone or in combination, including combinations with other cited references
fail to teach or suggest making a plurality of encoding choices based on a
second data stream to encode a first data stream as recited in the appealed
independent claims (App. Br. 14, 15, 20, 21, 23, 24, and 30).
ANALYSIS
Rejections over Nagaoka and Li
A. Claims 1-4, 7, 10, and 11
Independent claim 1 is argued (App. Br. 14-16); while the other
independent claim 10 is identified as including similar limitations to those of
claim 1 (App. Br. 14). We reviewed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1
and 10 in light of Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 15) identified supra, and
we agree that the Examiner erred.
The Examiner, in rejecting claim 1, acknowledges that Nagaoka “fails
to disclose[] wherein encoding said first data stream comprises making a
plurality of encoding choices; and controlling the encoding choices made
based upon a second data stream comprising said enhancement information”
(emphasis omitted) (Ans. 4). The Examiner finds these limitations taught by
Appeal 2009-012649
Application 10/939,786

4
Li (Ans. 4). Particularly, the Examiner finds the Li disclosed “hint tracks
[are] a plurality of the encoding choices (Li, ¶0006, ¶0027)” (Ans. 13).
Appellants disagree and argue “Li states that the hint tracks are
introduced to facilitate the transfer of video data across a network (see
paragraph no. [0037] of Li)” (App. Br. 15). Reviewing Li, we find it does
teach using hint tracks to facilitate data transfer across a network. For
example, Li discloses that:
When a single movie track, such as the enhancement
layer movie track 408, is hinted by multiple hint tracks, such as
hint tracks 412, 414, 416, 418, the elementary stream pointed
by the enhancement layer movie track 408, will be delivered
over the network by multiple RTP [Real-time Transport
Protocol] connections.

(¶ [0037].) Appellants, relying on this teaching, contend that “[a] person of
ordinary skill in the field of the invention would recognize the act of
encoding a data stream and transmitting the encoded data stream on multiple
RTP connections as two separate operations which are different” (Reply Br.
6). Reviewing the record, we find the term “encoding” to be used in accord
with its accustomed and ordinary meaning,
2
which does not encompass
using hint track information merely to facilitate network transfer of data
packets. Not finding persuasive evidence or argument to support equating
Li’s disclosed hint tracks to encoding choices, we agree with Appellants that
Li fails to cure the acknowledged deficiency of Nagaoka.

2
Encode is defined: “(3) (computers) To apply the rules of a code.” IEEE
100 THE AUTHORITATIVE DICTIONARY OF IEEE STANDARDS TERMS, 7
th
Ed.
2000.
Appeal 2009-012649
Application 10/939,786

5
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1
and 10, and we also do not sustain the rejection of their respective grouped
dependent claims 2-4, 7, and 11.
B. Claim 6
Appellants separately argue claim 6 (App. Br. 16-17). We do not
reach the separate arguments beyond Appellants reliance on arguments for
the patentability of independent base claim 1 as addressed supra (App. Br.
16). Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection.
Rejection over Nagaoka, Li, and Kim
A. Claim 5
Appellants assert the patentability of dependent claim 5 (App. Br. 17-
19) and again rely, inter alia, on arguments for patentability of independent
base claim 1 (App. Br. 17). The Examiner, for this rejection, continues to
find Li teaches or suggests using hint tracks for encoding (Ans. 6, 17) and
finds Kim teaches or suggests other limitations recited in claim 5 (Ans. 6,
16, and 17). No persuasive evidence of record is found to establish that Kim
cures Nagaoka and Li deficiencies as to claim 1that are addressed supra.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection.
B. Claims 12-22
Appellants separately argue independent claims 12 (App. Br. 23-25)
and 19 (App. Br. 29-32) with reliance, inter alia, on arguments substantively
similar to those addressed supra for claim 1. The Examiner, for this
rejection, continues to find Li teaches or suggests using hint tracks for
encoding (Ans. 8, 9, 11, and 21-23) and finds Kim teaches or suggests other
limitations (Ans. 9, 11). No persuasive evidence of record is found to
establish that Kim cures Nagaoka and Li deficiencies as to claim 1 that are
Appeal 2009-012649
Application 10/939,786

6
addressed supra. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 12 and 19 and we also do not sustain the rejection of
their respective dependent claims 13-18 and 20-22.
Rejection over Nagaoka, Li, and Chen
Appellants separately argue independent claim 8 (App. Br. 19-22)
with reliance, inter alia, on arguments substantively similar to those
addressed supra for claim 1 (App. Br. 20-21). The Examiner, for this
rejection, is understood to substantively continue in finding Li teaches or
suggests using hint tracks for encoding (Ans. 7) and finds Chen teaches or
suggests other limitations (Ans. 7, 8). No persuasive evidence of record is
found to establish that Chen cures Nagaoka and Li deficiencies as to claim 1
that are addressed supra. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 8 and we also do not sustain the rejection of dependent
claim 9.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-22 is reversed.

REVERSED

kis