Ex Parte Meyer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

11591404 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111591,404 11/01/2006
278 7590 08/02/2016
MICHAEL J. STRIKER
103 EAST NECK ROAD
HUNTINGTON, NY 11743
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Meyer
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.
3878 7938
EXAMINER
HESS, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2016 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):
striker@strikerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL MEYER, HANS-JUERGEN BUSCH,
and KLAUS STUHLMUELLER
Appeal2015-004441
Application 11/591,4041
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and JOHN D. HAMANN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-7, and 9-13. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to analyzing video content to
provide content information about video data, which content information can
be combined in a structured manner, via accumulation in hierarchical levels
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is ROBERT BOSCH
GMBH. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-004441
Application 11/591,404
for transfer, display, or storage in a network. See Spec. 5, 11. 12-16. Claim
1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A method for handling content information using at least
one device in a network, the method comprising steps of
carrying out a video content analysis to provide content
information for video data;
accumulating the content information in different
hierarchal levels and in different resolutions; and
compressing the content information from lower
hierarchal levels into new content information in higher
hierarchal levels, wherein the new content information operates
as an overview for the content information from the lower
hierarchical levels;
wherein the content information comprises a video content
description embodied in metadata.
REJECTION ON APPEAL 2
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-7, and 9-13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Y ogeshwar et al.
(US 2004/0096110 A 1; publ. May 20, 2004) (hereinafter "Y ogeshwar") and
van Bemmel (US 2006/0112185 Al; publ. May 25, 2006), collectively
referred to as the "combination. "3
2 The Examiner notes in the Advisory Action, a§ 112, second paragraph,
concern was raised regarding the clarity of content description being in
different resolutions, but also notes there is no accompanying rejection.
Ans. 14--15; Adv. Act. 2. Accordingly, a§ 112 rejection is not before us.
3 The Examiner references Wu et al. (US 2006/0156363 Al; publ. July 13,
2006) (hereinafter "Wu") as a contemporaneous publication for how one
skilled in the art would understand the teachings of the combination. Ans.
16; see also Final Act. 4 (stating Wu explains one of ordinary skill would
have understood more than one video stream in a media file to represent
scalably encoded video streams), 8 (stating Wu explains one of ordinary
2
Appeal2015-004441
Application 11/591,404
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and we incorporate herein
and adopt as our own the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in (1) the April 23, 2014 Final Office Action (Final Act. 2-11 ),
(2) the July 18, 2014 Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2), and (3) the January 5,
2015 Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-17). We highlight and address, however,
specific findings and arguments below for emphasis.
(1) Su(ficiency ofmotivation to combine
Appellants contend the Examiner failed to provide a sufficient
motivation to combine Yogeshwar and van Bemmel. Br. 15-16. Appellants
argue the claimed invention "does not provide tailored video content
according to client device limitations, the stated motivation for modifying
Y ogeshwar in view of van Bemmel." Br. 15.
The Examiner finds "[ o ]ne of ordinary skill in the art ... would have
been motivated to combine the elements taught by Y ogeshwar with those of
van Bemmel ... because storing multiple versions of the same file allows
the server to provide tailored video content according to client device
limitations." Final Act. 6 (citing van Bemmel i-f 57). The Examiner also
finds that it is unnecessary that the prior art suggest making the combination
to achieve the same result as a claimed invention. Ans. 10 (citing MPEP §
2144(IV)).
skill would have understood structural metadata includes level information),
10.
3
Appeal2015-004441
Application 11/591,404
We find the Examiner provides "articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Examiner reasons a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine
Y ogeshwar and van Bemmel to store multiple versions of the same file,
which allows the server to provide tailored video content according to client
device limitations. Final Act. 6. We also find Appellants' argument that the
claimed invention achieves different results unpersuasive. See In re Linter,
458 F.2d 1013, 1016 (CCPA 1972) (finding it is not necessary for the prior
art to serve the same purpose as that disclosed in appellants' specification in
order to support the conclusion that the claimed subject matter would have
been obvious).
(2) Accumulating the content information
Appellants argue the combination, and van Bemmel in particular, fails
to teach or suggest "accumulating the content information in different
hierarchal levels and in different resolutions," as recited in claims 1, 7, 11,
and 12, and similarly recited in claim 10. Br. 16. Specifically, Appellants
argue:
van Bemmel' s "means for encoding a video file is instead
directed to the video data itself, i.e., in data blocks" and that van
Bemmel' s use of storing multiple versions of the same video file
in different qualities (formats), or using different CODECs for
different clients is not equivalent to "accumulating content
information in different hierarchical levels and in different
1 t . " reso u 10ns ....
Id.; see also Spec. 6, 1. 22 to 7, 1. 10.
The Examiner states Appellants' arguments lack clarity and fail to
"particularly enunciate the alleged differences between the cited prior art
4
Appeal2015-004441
Application 11/591,404
and Appellant[ s'] claimed invention." Ans. 11. The Examiner finds the
combination teaches the disputed limitation. Ans. 12. Specifically, the
Examiner finds Y ogeshwar teaches "transcoding information stored in an
archive into video streams representing different content resolutions." Id.
(citing Yogeshwar i-f 35). The Examiner also finds Yogeshwar also teaches
"an archive file format that stores several video streams of the content item."
Id. (citing Yogeshwar i-fi-1 122-23). In addition, the Examiner alternatively
finds "van Bemmel teaches a caching server that stores different versions of
the same video file according to quality or compression scheme," and thus
teaches the disputed limitation. Ans. 13 (citing van Bemmel i-f 57).
We agree with the Examiner that Appellants' arguments lack clarity
and fail to differentiate between the disputed limitation and the
combination's teachings. We are not apprised of error based on Appellants'
argument which largely just recites the language of the claim and asserts that
the prior art does not disclose that limitation. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012) ("A statement which merely points out what a claim
recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the
claim."); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding
that "the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art").
(3) Compressing the content information
Appellants argue the combination, and Y ogeshwar in particular, fails
to teach or suggest "compressing the content information from lower
hierarchal levels into new content information in higher hierarchal levels,
5
Appeal2015-004441
Application 11/591,404
wherein the new content information operates as an overview for the content
information from the lower hierarchical levels" as recited in claims 1, 7, 10,
11, and 12. Br. 17. Specifically, Appellants argue:
Y ogeshwar . . . discloses allowing auxiliary data in the
form or metadata to be incorporated with encoded A/V data.
That [is], first A/V data are encoded according to IAF and
then, metadata is incorporated with the encoded A/V data, e.g.,
as auxiliary data. The reason that the encoded A/V data are
maintained separately in an IAF file is so the auxiliary data does
not interfere with an ability of a decoder that supports standard
encoding format to decode "at least the encoded A/V data
included in the created file .... "
Id. (citing Jan. 30, 2014 Amendment (citing Yogeshwar i1 51 )). Appellants
thus contend "the only data that Y ogeshwar might compress in different
hierarchical levels is a/v data, not content description data (metadata)." Br.
18.
The Examiner finds the combination, and Y ogeshwar in particular,
teaches the disputed limitation. Ans. 13-14. Specifically, the Examiner
finds "Y ogeshwar teaches transcoding a video of a given quality to any other
level of quality using encoding techniques and related parameters." Id. at 13
(citing Y ogeshwar i1i1 51, 72 ("teach[ ing] previewing low quality images.").
The Examiner further finds that one of ordinary skill in the art knows
"transcoding" refers to "compression coding video content into another
resolution or quality." Id.
We agree with the Examiner that the combination, and Y ogeshwar in
particular, teaches the disputed limitation. We note that Appellants appear
to distinguish between video data and content information, which
Appellants' appear to assert includes metadata. Br. 18. The Examiner finds
that the broadest reasonable interpretation for "content information" is that it
6
Appeal2015-004441
Application 11/591,404
includes both descriptive metadata and the content itself. Ans. 12.
Appellants' Appeal Brief does not provide specific arguments as to what
(and why) the broadest reasonable interpretation for "content information"
should be. Assuming arguendo that content information must include
metadata, i.e., Appellants' apparent construction, the cited passages teach or
suggest compression of both metadata and the content itself. See, e.g.,
Y ogeshwar i-fi-1 51 ("The IAF supported formats allow metadata to be
incorporated with the encoded A/V data, e.g., as auxiliary data, without
interfering with the ability of a decoder which supports the standard
encoding format to decode at least the encoded A/V data included in the
created file.") (emphasis added), 72). For example, paragraph 51 of
Y ogeshwar at least suggests that metadata (e.g., associated encoding
parameters) is compressed with the content in an IAF file. Id.
(4) Non-functional descriptive matter
The Examiner finds that the claim phrase "wherein the content
information comprises a video content description embodied in metadata,"
as recited in claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 13, is non-functional descriptive
material which is afforded no patentable weight. Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 14.
Appellants argue that this limitation is not found in the cited prior art
and, thus, the claims on appeal are patentable. Br. 18.
We find Appellants have not substantively addressed the Examiner's
finding of non-functional descriptive material. Accordingly, we treat these
arguments as waived and we sustain the Examiner's finding. See Ex parte
Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) ("[T]he Board
will generally not reach the merits of any issues not contested by an
appellant."); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551F.3d1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
7
Appeal2015-004441
Application 11/591,404
(finding the Board may treat arguments appellant fails to make for a given
ground of rejection as waived).
(5) Labeling the packets with level information tags
Appellants argue that the combination, and Y ogeshwar in particular,
fails to teach or suggest "labeling the packets with level information tags,"
as recited in claim 13. Br. 19-20. As to Yogeshwar, Appellants argue it
instead teaches generating separately stored intermediate archive format
(IAF) files in the correct file format, i.e., to perform formatting. Br. 20
(citing Y ogeshwar i-f 18). Appellants further contend "there is no labeling
with label information tags." Id.
The Examiner finds the combination teaches the disputed limitation.
Ans. 16-17. Specifically, the Examiner finds Y ogeshwar teaches there are
headers and metadata in a packetized data format. Ans. 16 (citing
Yogeshwar i-fi-1 118, 121 ). The Examiner then finds one skilled in the art
would have understood having "headers in a packetized data format to be
equivalent to labeling packets with tags." Id. As to level information, which
is "the particular information the tags convey," the Examiner finds it "is
non-functional descriptive material and entitled to no patentable weight."
Id.
Nonetheless, the Examiner also finds Yogeshwar teaches structural
metadata (e.g., level information). Ans. 16 (citing Yogeshwari-f 121). The
Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art "would have interpreted the
teachings of Y ogeshwar regarding structural metadata ... to teach the
metadata information of the video coding standards (e.g.[,] MPEG) ... ,
including the scalable extensions of MPEG which packetize video
8
Appeal2015-004441
Application 11/591,404
elements ... using identifying overhead information, i.e. information tags."
Id.
We are not apprised of error in the Examiner's findings. We adopt the
Examiner's findings as to this disputed limitation as our own and find
Yogeshwar teaches the disputed limitation. See Yogeshwar i-fi-f 118, 121.
Additionally, the Examiner notes the provided rationale for combining
the references (i.e., motivation to combine) applies to all claims, including
claim 13. See Final Act. 6 ("This motivation applies to all combinations of
Y ogeshwar and van Bemmel in this Action."). Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that Appellants' argument that "[t]he stated rejection does not give
any reason for modifying Y ogesh[ w] ar as taught by van Bemmel" is
unpersuasive. See Br. 20 (making argument for claim 13).
DECISION
Based on our findings above, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1, 3-7, and 9-13.
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
9