Ex Parte McKinley et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 31, 2012

10053488 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 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.
10/053,488 11/02/2001 Tyler J. McKinley 098888-1674 3362
99103 7590 05/31/2012
Foley & Lardner LLP
150 EAST GILMAN STREET
P.O. BOX 1497
MADISON, WI 53701-1497
EXAMINER
CHEN, WENPENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2624
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2012 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 TYLER J. MCKINLEY, WILLIAM C. HEIN III,
TONY F. RODRIGUEZ, ALASTAIR M. REED,
and GEOFFREY B. RHOADS
___________

Appeal 2009-014113
Application 10/053,488
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before DENISE M. POTHIER, ERIC B. CHEN, and
ANDREW CALDWELL, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014113
Application 10/053,488

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 2, 4-24, and 26-34.1 Claims 5-13 and 31 have been withdrawn from
consideration, and claims 1, 3, and 25 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a method of segmenting a media
signal for parallel watermarking operations. The method sub-divides the
media signal into segments, distributes the segments to parallel processors,
and performs parallel digital watermark operations on the segments in the
parallel processors. (Abstract.)
Claims 2, 4, 23, and 34 are exemplary, with minor formatting and
disputed limitations in italics:
2. A method of segmenting a media signal for parallel
watermarking operations, the method comprising:
sub-dividing the media signal into parts representing different
perceptual portions within the signal, including specifying the
locations of parts to be embedded with corresponding digital
watermark messages and providing data used to control embedding of
the corresponding digital watermarking messages in the parts;
distributing the specified parts to parallel processors after the
specifying of the locations of the parts to be embedded with
corresponding digital watermark messages; and
performing parallel digital watermark operations on the
specified parts in the parallel processors according to the data used to
control the embedding.

1 Appellants do not present any arguments with respect to the rejection of
claims 14-17, 20-22, 29, 30, 32, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a). Thus, any
such arguments are deemed to be waived.
Appeal 2009-014113
Application 10/053,488

3
4. A method of segmenting a media signal for parallel
watermarking operations, the method comprising:
sub-dividing the media signal into segments based on analysis
of the media signal to identify parts of media signal having signal
characteristics that are more likely to carry a readable watermark
signal;
analyzing the media signal to prioritize the segments of the
media signal for digital watermark operations on the segments
wherein the media signal segments are prioritized for digital
watermark embedding operations and wherein the media signal
segments are prioritized such that segments that are more likely to
carry a readable watermark signal are given higher priority for the
embedding operations;
distributing the prioritized segments to parallel processors; and
performing parallel digital watermark embedding operations on
the prioritized segments in the parallel processors according to
priority order of the prioritized segments.

23. A distributed digital watermark embedder comprising:
a watermark signal generator for generating a watermark from a
message;
a perceptual analyzer for perceptually analyzing a media signal
and generating perceptual control parameters used to control
application of the watermark to the media signal; and
a watermark applicator for receiving the media signal, the
watermark and the perceptual control parameters, and for applying the
watermark to the media signal according to the perceptual control
parameters;
wherein the watermark signal generator, the perceptual analyzer
and the watermark applicator operate on distributed processors;
wherein variable watermarks are embedded in copies of a
media signal by executing the perceptual analyzer on the media signal
once to generate a perceptual mask that is dependent on and
automatically computed from the content of the media signal and is
re-used by the watermark applicator to apply different watermarks
Appeal 2009-014113
Application 10/053,488

4
from the watermark signal generator to the copies, the perceptual
mask specifying areas of the media signal and is used to control
embedding of the watermark in the areas.

34. A batch digital watermark registration and embedding
system comprising:
a network interface for receiving ID registration requests, the
requests including a list of media signal files and information to be
linked with the media signal files via data embedded in the media
signal files;
a batch registration loader for creating records in a registration
database corresponding to identifiers for each of the media signal
files;
a batch registration extractor for reading the registration
database and creating an embedder control file, including identifiers,
a corresponding list of media signal files, and embedding instructions
for controlling embedding of the identifiers in the media signal files;
and
a parallel digital watermark embedder for segmenting media
signal files into segments and for distributing the segments to parallel
processors for performing parallel digital watermark embedding
operations on the segments to hide the identifiers in the media signal
files.

Claims 4, 18, 19, 23, 24, and 26-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Vynne (U.S. Patent No. 5,960,081; Sept. 28,
1999).
Claims 2, 4, 18-24, and 26-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over Vynne. (See Final Rej. 9-17.)
Claim 2, 14-16, 20, 22, 29, 30, 32, and 33 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Vynne and Hawkins (U.S. Patent
No. 6,389,421 B1; May 14, 2002). (See Final Rej. 18-23.)
Appeal 2009-014113
Application 10/053,488

5
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Vynne and Kawaguchi (U.S. Patent No. 6,473,516 B1; Oct. 29, 2002).
(See Final Rej. 23.)
Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Shinoda (U.S. Patent No. 6,611,830 B2; Aug. 26, 2003) and Vynne.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Vynne, Hawkins, and Peters (U.S. Patent No. 6,374,336 B1; Apr. 16,
2002). (See Final Rej. 25-26.)

ANALYSIS
Claims 4, 18, and 19 – Anticipation and Obviousness Rejections
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 42; see also
Reply Br. 2) that Vynne does not describe the limitation “sub-dividing the
media signal into segments based on analysis of the media signal to identify
parts of media signal having signal characteristics that are more likely to
carry a readable watermark signal,” as recited in independent claim 4.
The Examiner found that the motion vectors and the displayed frame
difference frame of Vynne correspond to the limitation “sub-dividing the
media signal into segments based on analysis of the media signal to identify
parts of media signal having signal characteristics that are more likely to
carry a readable watermark signal.” (Ans. 3-4, 20-21.) We do not agree.
Vynne relates to “marking moving pictures with watermark
information, and more particularly embedding a digital code into
compressed video sequences.” (Col. 1, ll. 5-7.) In one embodiment, Vynne
discloses using a block-based coding scheme to extract motion vectors and

2 We refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed July 7, 2008.
Appeal 2009-014113
Application 10/053,488

6
embedding a signature into these motion vectors. (Col. 4, ll. 29-31.)
Furthermore, “information about a watermark could be coded either into the
motion vectors V(n) or into the displayed frame difference framedfd(n), since
these are general for all such block-based systems” (col. 14, ll. 47-50) such
that only a “subset U(n)ϵV(n) is selected” for embedding a watermark
(col. 14, ll. 55-56). Thus, Vynne describes that all the motion vectors V(n)
and the corresponding displayed frame difference framedfd(n) of the video
sequence are extracted, rather than being subdivided into segments “based
on analysis of the media signal to identify parts of media signal having
signal characteristics that are more likely to carry a readable watermark
signal.”
Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that Vynne describes the
limitation “sub-dividing the media signal into segments based on analysis of
the media signal to identify parts of media signal having signal
characteristics that are more likely to carry a readable watermark signal,” as
recited in independent claim 4.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Independent claim 18 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to independent claim 4. We do not sustain the rejection of
claim 18, as well as claim 19, which depends from claim 18, for the same
reasons discussed with respect to claim 4.
Additionally, the Examiner relies on the same rationale in rejecting
claims 4, 18, and 19 under § 103(a) over Vynne. (See Ans. 8-11.) We do
not sustain the rejection of claims 4, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
Appeal 2009-014113
Application 10/053,488

7
the same reasons discussed with respect to the rejection of claim 4 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e).

Claims 23, 24, and 26-28 – Anticipation and Obviousness Rejections
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 8-9; see also
Reply Br. 3-4) that Vynne does not describe the limitation, “a perceptual
mask that is dependent on and automatically computed from the content of
the media signal,” as recited in independent claim 23.
The Examiner found that the motion vectors and the threshold value
of Vynne for selecting a subset of blocks for watermarking correspond to the
limitation “a perceptual mask that is dependent on and automatically
computed from the content of the media signal.” (Ans. 6, 25.) We do not
agree.
Vynne describes that “[t]o select the subset U(n) of motion vectors
suitable for coding, it is necessary to investigate each single block in a
frame, and on the basis of some criteria, decide whether the belonging
motion vector for the block should be added to the subset.” (Col. 8, ll. 36-
41.) Vynne further describes that the subset U(n) of motion vectors is
selected by applying three different threshold criteria. (Col. 8, ll. 44-63.) In
other words, because each block of the video signal of Vynne is investigated
using the threshold criteria to determine if a watermark can be coded on the
motion vector, Vynne does not sufficiently describe a causal relationship
between the video signal (i.e. the claimed “content of the media signal”) and
the threshold values (i.e., the claimed “perceptual mask,” as found by the
Examiner (Ans. 6, 25)). Accordingly, Vynne does not disclose “a perceptual
mask that is dependent on . . . the content of the media signal.”
Appeal 2009-014113
Application 10/053,488

8
Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that Vynne describes the
limitation “a perceptual mask that is dependent on and automatically
computed from the content of the media signal,” as recited in independent
claim 23.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Claims 24 and 26-28 depend from independent
claim 23. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 24 and 26-28 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent
claim 23.
Additionally, the Examiner relies on the same rationale in rejecting
claims 23, 24, and 26-28 under § 103(a) over Vynne. (See Ans. 11-13.) We
do not sustain the rejection of claims 23, 24, and 26-28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to the rejection of
claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

Claim 2 – Obviousness Rejections
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 10; see also
Reply Br. 5-6) that the combination of Vynne and Hawkins would not have
rendered obvious independent claim 2, which includes the limitations
“distributing the specified parts to parallel processors after the specifying of
the locations of the parts to be embedded with corresponding digital
watermark messages” and “performing parallel digital watermark operations
on the specified parts in the parallel processors according to the data used to
control the embedding.”
The Examiner acknowledged that Vynne does not disclose the
limitations “distributing the specified parts to parallel processors after the
Appeal 2009-014113
Application 10/053,488

9
specifying of the locations of the parts to be embedded with corresponding
digital watermark messages” and “performing parallel digital watermark
operations on the specified parts in the parallel processors according to the
data used to control the embedding” (see Ans. 16) and, therefore, relied on
Hawkins for teaching the running of multiple watermarking threads in
parallel (Ans. 16-17; Hawkins, col. 12, ll. 17-24.) The Examiner concluded
that it would have been obvious to combine Vynne and Hawkins “because
the combination speeds up [the] watermarking process.” (Ans. 17.) We
agree with the Examiner.
Vynne relates to a method “for watermarking digital video material by
embedding a digital signature.” (Abstract.) Hawkins relates “to a method
and a system for handling processor-intensive operations in a data
processing system such as a computer-based data retrieval system” (col. 1,
ll. 7-9), for example, digital watermarking of images (Abstract). Hawkins
teaches that watermarking is limited to a single watermarking process per
available processor and thus, “[o]verall throughput would be reduced by
running multiple such [watermarking] threads in parallel on a single
processor. (Col. 12, ll. 17-24.) Therefore, Hawkins in combination with
Vynne teaches the limitations, “distributing the specified parts to parallel
processors after the specifying of the locations of the parts to be embedded
with corresponding digital watermark messages” and “performing parallel
digital watermark operations on the specified parts in the parallel processors
according to the data used to control the embedding.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
have recognized that incorporating the method of Hawkins for processing
multiple watermarking threads in parallel with the method of Vynne for
Appeal 2009-014113
Application 10/053,488

10
watermarking digital video materials would improve Vynne by reducing
overall throughput. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 17) that modifying
Vynne to include the method of Hawkins for processing multiple
watermarking threads in parallel would have been obvious.
Appellants argue that “[i]n Hawkins, ‘points’ are a unit for a
processing resource to be assigned to a processing task” and “[t]here is no
suggestion of associating such units of processing resources to a block of a
signal.” (App. Br. 9-10.) However, the Examiner cited Hawkins for
teaching that overall throughput would be reduced by running multiple
watermarking threads in parallel on a single processor, rather than a “point”
or unit for a processing resource. (Ans. 17, 29.)
Appellants further argue that:
It is unlikely that one of skill in the art would treat the insertion
of a watermark in one block of Vynne as a task in Hawkins
because that task is simply modifying a single motion vector
. . . and that simple task is not worth the extra cost and overhead
of parallel processing.
(Reply Br. 6.) However, even if the combination of Vynne and Hawkins
would result in “extra cost and overhead,” this does not mean that persons
skilled in the art would not make the combination. See In re Farrenkopf,
713 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Vynne and
Hawkins would have rendered obvious independent claim 2, which includes
the limitations “distributing the specified parts to parallel processors after
the specifying of the locations of the parts to be embedded with
corresponding digital watermark messages” and “performing parallel digital
Appeal 2009-014113
Application 10/053,488

11
watermark operations on the specified parts in the parallel processors
according to the data used to control the embedding.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 2 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Vynne and Hawkins.
Because independent claim 2 is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Vynne and Hawkins, we do not reach additional issues raised by
Appellants regarding the cumulative rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Vynne alone.

Claim 34
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 10-11;
see also Reply Br. 7) that the combination of Vynne and Shinoda would not
have rendered obvious independent claim 34, which includes the limitations
“a list of media signal files” and “a batch registration extractor for reading
the registration database and creating an embedder control file, including
identifiers, a corresponding list of media signal files, and embedding
instructions for controlling embedding of the identifiers in the media signal
files.”
The Examiner found that the Web page of Shinoda corresponds to the
claimed “list of media signal files.” (Ans. 18; Shinoda, col. 3, ll. 21-24.)
The Examiner also found that the mark creating program 20143 corresponds
to the claimed “a batch registration extractor for reading the registration
database and creating an embedder control file, including identifiers, a
corresponding list of media signal files, and embedding instructions for
controlling embedding of the identifiers in the media signal files.” (Ans. 18;
Shinoda, col. 3, ll. 37-39; Fig. 2.) We agree with the Examiner.
Appeal 2009-014113
Application 10/053,488

12
Shinoda relates to “an information search system for searching for
multimedia data, and more particularly to a system for searching for
multimedia data based on fixed-pattern data such as a mark mounted in the
multimedia data.” (Col. 1, ll. 9-13.) In one embodiment, a mark
management server 103 includes a processing unit 201 and an external
storage device 202 (col. 3, ll. 7-11; Fig. 2), such that the external storage
device 202 includes a “mark management DB 2021 [that] stores information
on Web pages to which a mark is attached, while the mark image DB 2022
stores image data associated with respective marks” (col. 3, ll. 21-24). A
mark management DB control program 20141 accesses the mark
management DB 2021 in response to a request from a mark creating
program 20143. (Col. 3, ll. 37-39.) Because the mark creating
program 20143 accesses the mark management DB 2021 that stores
information on multiple Web pages and multiple marks, Shinoda teaches
that multiple marks can be embedded on multiple Web pages (i.e., a batch
process). Therefore, Shinoda teaches the limitations “a list of media signal
files” and “a batch registration extractor for reading the registration database
and creating an embedder control file, including identifiers, a corresponding
list of media signal files, and embedding instructions for controlling
embedding of the identifiers in the media signal files.”
Appellants argue that “Shinoda only teaches embedding one image at
a time.” (App. Br. 10.) Similarly, Appellants argue that “[t]he Examiner
appears to suggest that if Shinoda’s system received multiple requests, it
would result in embedding multiple images by handling those requests one
at a time.” (Reply Br. 7.) However, as discussed previously, Shinoda
teaches that the mark creating program 20143 accesses the mark
Appeal 2009-014113
Application 10/053,488

13
management DB 2021 and stores information on multiple Web pages and
multiple marks.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Vynne and
Shinoda would have rendered obvious independent claim 34, which includes
the limitations “a list of media signal files” and “a batch registration
extractor for reading the registration database and creating an embedder
control file, including identifiers, a corresponding list of media signal files,
and embedding instructions for controlling embedding of the identifiers in
the media signal files.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 34 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Remaining Pending Claims
Claims 14-17, 20-22, 29, 30, 32, and 33 stand rejected under § 103(a)
based on Vynne alone or in combination with different references.
Appellants have not presented any arguments concerning these claims. (See
App. Br. 2-11; Reply Br. 2-7.) We therefore, summarily sustain the
rejections of these claims. See, e.g., Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(MPEP) § 1205.02, 8th ed., Rev. 8, July 2010 (“If a ground of rejection
stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief, that ground
of rejection will be summarily sustained by the Board.”).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 4, 18, 19, 23, 24, and 26-28
is reversed.
Appeal 2009-014113
Application 10/053,488

14
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2, 14-17, 20-22, 29, 30, and
32-34 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

babc