Ex Parte Luthra

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 15, 2016

12643252 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/643,252 12/21/2009
124169 7590 03/17/2016
BRAKE HUGHES BELLERMANN LLP
c/o CPA Global
PO Box 52050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ajay Luthra
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.
0120-008001 4143
EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, JEFFERY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/17/2016 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@cpaglobal.com
uspto@brakehughes.com
mark@brakehughes.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte AJAYLUTHRA
Appeal2014-006611
Application 12/643,252 1
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., KEVIN C. TROCK, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1---6, 8-10, and 17-20, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant indicate the real party in interest is Motorola Mobility LLC. Br.
3.
2 Claims 7 and 11-16 are cancelled. Br. 9-11.
Appeal2014-006611
Application 12/643,252
Invention
The claims are directed to a transcoding method and device
configured to transcode a scalable video coded stream to a single layer
encoded video stream for a receiving device. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A transcoding device configured to transcode a
scalable
video coding (SVC) video stream to a single layer
advanced video coding (A VC) video stream, the transcoding
device comprising:
an interface connecting a receiving device to the
transcoding device, wherein the receiving device is configured
to receive an encoded video stream and determine whether the
encoded video stream includes the SVC stream; and
a transcoder receiving the SVC stream via the interface
from the receiving device in response to the receiving device
determining the encoded video stream includes the SVC stream,
and
the transcoder generating the single layer A VC encoded
video stream from the SVC coded stream based on coding
parameters describing parameters of the single layer A VC video
stream, wherein
the single layer encoded A VC video stream is sent to the
receiving device via the interface.
Rejection
Claims 1---6, 8-10, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Londero (US 2011/0007821 Al, published Jan. 13,
2011) and Eleftheriadis et al. (US 2007 /0230568 Al, published Oct. 4, 2007).
2
Appeal2014-006611
Application 12/643,252
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellant's arguments and conclusions. 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 findings and reasons set forth in
the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis
as follows.
Independent Claims 1, 17, and 20
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims
1, 17, and 20 because the combination of Londero and Eleftheriadis fails to
teach or suggest "sending the SVC coded stream to the external transcoding
device via the second interface" in response to "determin[ing] the encoded
video stream includes the SVC stream." Br. 5. Appellant also contends the
combination fails to teach or suggest "determining whether the MPEG
stream includes the SVC coded stream" and "transcoding the SVC coded
stream to generate the a single layer A VC encoded MP EG video stream
from the SVC coded stream" in response to "determining the MPEG stream
includes the SVC coded stream." Br. 6, 7.
Appellant argues Londero's television apparatus 2 is incapable of
receiving broadcast video signals encoded in accordance with the MPEG-4
standard and is also incapable of deciding whether to transmit a video stream
to a transcoding device. Br. 6. 7.
The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, Londero teaches:
3
Appeal2014-006611
Application 12/643,252
a transcoder (1) receiving the first stream [0034] via the interface
(20) from the receiving device (2) in response to the receiving
device determining the encoded video stream includes the first
stream ([0034], the receiving device receives the MPEG4 stream
which it is incapable of decoding), and the transcoder generating
the second encoded video stream [0039] from the first coded
stream based ([0039, the MPEG 4 stream is converted to an
MPEG2 stream)
Final Act. 3.
The Examiner further explains, and we agree:
in the case the received video stream received by the receiving
unit 4 is encoded in a MPEG-4 format (i.e. a second format), the
received stream is directed to a transcoding module 1 in which
the MPEG-4 stream (second format) is decoded by a MPEG- 4
decoder 28 and subsequently encoded by a MPEG-2 encoder 30
for generating a MPEG-2 stream (first format) for transmission
back to the television apparatus 2.
Ans. 8 (citing Londero i-fi-137--40, Figs. 1, 2)
The Examiner also finds, and we agree, Eleftheriadis teaches
"transcoding from a scalable video coding (SVC) video stream to a single
layer (A VC) video stream [0017] and generating the single layer A VC
encoded video stream .... " Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
incorporate the teachings of Eleftherriadis into the teachings of Landero to
order to allow transcoding from SVC to single layer A VC video streams for
devices incapable of decoding SVC video streams. Id. We agree.
Accordingly, we do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive and we
agree with the Examiner that the combination of Londero and Eleftherriadis
teaches "a transcoder receiving the SVC stream via the interface from the
4
Appeal2014-006611
Application 12/643,252
receiving device in response to the receiving device determining the encoded
video stream includes the SVC stream, and the transcoder generating the
single layer A VC encoded video stream from the SVC coded stream," as
recited in independent claim 1, and similarly in independent claims 17 and
20.
Remaining Claims 2-6, 8-10, 18, and 19.
Appellant has not presented separate, substantive arguments with
respect to remaining claims 2---6, 8-10, 18, and 19. See Br. 5-8.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6, 8-10, and 17-
I"\/"\
LU.
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
5