Ex Parte Mukherjee et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 11, 2012

10724284 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 11, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte DEBARGHA MUKHERJEE and GERALDINE KUO
____________________

Appeal 2010-003480
Application 10/724,284
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, THU A. DANG,
and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003480
Application 10/724,284

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 11-19, 33, 34, and 37-44 (App. Br. 3). Claims 1-10, 20-32, 35, and
36 have been canceled (id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to an adaptation engine and method
of bit stream transmission; wherein, the adaptation engine is capable of
receiving scaling attributes and performing decision making tasks in a
relatively compact way using content-independent functions (mathematical
expressions) (Abstract; Spec. 5, ll. 3-6 and 6, ll. 10-16).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 11 is exemplary:
11. A machine-implemented method, comprising:

receiving a scalable encoded bitstream comprising
scalable encoded media data and values of non-media-type-
specific scalability attribute variables defining different
adaptation points of the scalable encoded media data;

obtaining receiving attributes for a destination of an
outbound version of the scalable encoded bitstream, wherein
ones of the receiving attributes define explicit constraints on the
outbound version of the scalable encoded bitstream in terms of
respective functions of ones of the scalability attribute
variables;

Appeal 2010-003480
Application 10/724,284

3
determining values of adaptation measures from
respective evaluations of the functions based on the values of
the ones of the scalability attribute variables;

ascertaining a set of one or more candidate ones of the
adaptation points of based on imposition of the constraints on
the determined values of the adaptation measures;

selecting an adaptation point from the set of candidate
adaptation points without regard to the scalable encoded media
data; and

transcoding the scalable bit stream in accordance with the
selected adaptation point to produce the outbound version of the
scalable encoded bitstream.

C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kalra US 5,953,506 Sep. 14, 1999
Mukherjee US 7,133,925 B2 Nov. 07, 2006
(“Mukherjee ‘925”) (filed Jul. 15, 2002)

Mukherjee et al, “Proposals for end-to-end Digital item
adaption using Structured Scalable Meta-formats (SSM),”
International Organization for Standardization (Oct. 2002)
(hereinafter “Mukherjee-Proposal”).

Claims 11-19, 33, 34, and 37-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Kalra in view of Mukherjee-Proposal.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
finding that Mukherjee ‘925, from which the present application claims
Appeal 2010-003480
Application 10/724,284

4
priority, fails to teach the concepts of “defining different adaptation points,”
“ascertaining a set of one or more candidate ones of the adaptation points,”
or “selecting an adaptation point from the set of candidate adaptation points
without regard to the scalable encoded media data” (claim 11, emphasis
added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. According to Appellants, in a L-dimensional matrix
representing a scalable encoded bitstream, (j0,j1, …, jL-1) is the adaptation
point and the (j0,j1, …, jL-1)th element is denoted C(j0,j1, …, jL-1) (Spec. 16, ll.
23-28).
Mukherjee ‘925
2. Mukherjee ‘925 discloses a system, method, and bit-stream
format for delivery of scalable encoded media data; wherein, the bit-stream
includes scalability attributes in a first portion and media data and data
structure information in a second portion (Abstract). The media data is
transcoded prior to delivery based on the receiving attributes of the media
destination and non-media specific scalability attributes of the formatted
scalable encoded media bit-stream (id.).
3. The system and method is extensible to support adaptation and
delivery of any new kind of scalable media that evolve in the future (col. 4,
ll. 57-59); wherein, in a L-dimensional matrix representing a scalable
Appeal 2010-003480
Application 10/724,284

5
encoded bitstream, (j0,j1, …, jL-1) is the reference point that indicates which
layers of the L nested tiers are transmitted (col. 8, ll. 30-39).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claim 11-18, 33, 34, 37, and 44
Appellants contend that “Mukherjee[-Proposal] does not qualify as
prior art for [the claims],” since “[t]he present application claims priority to
[patent Mukherjee ‘925] filed July 15, 2002” which pre-dates Mukherjee-
Proposals (Oct. 2002) (App. Br. 9).
However, the Examiner finds that “the concepts of ‘defining different
adaptation points’, ‘ascertaining a set of one or more candidate ones of the
adaptation points,’ or ‘selecting an adaptation point from the set of candidate
adaptation points without regard to the scalable encoded media data’ are not
fully supported by the ‘925 patent” (Ans. 12 (quoting claim 11)). Thus, “the
claim is not entitled to the earlier effective filing date and the Mukherjee[-
Proposals] is considered prior art” (Ans. 13).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants contend that “[a]lthough Mukherjee-
‘925 does not use the term ‘adaptation points’, the Present Application
defines the term ‘adaptation points’ in the context of the teachings of
Mukherjee-‘925 such that the term ‘adaptation points’ is fully supported by
the teachings of Mukherjee-‘925” (Reply Br. 2). Appellants assert that “the
structure and format of the scalable encoded bitstreams described in
Mukherjee-‘925 supports the use of the recitation of ‘defining different
adaptation points’” (Reply Br. 3).
Mukherjee ‘925 discloses a system, method, and bit-stream format for
delivery of scalable encoded media data; wherein, media data is transcoded
Appeal 2010-003480
Application 10/724,284

6
prior to delivery based on the receiving attributes of the media destination
and non-media specific scalability attributes of the formatted scalable
encoded media bit-stream (FF 2). The system and method supports
adaptation and delivery of any new kind of scalable media which evolves;
wherein, in a L-dimensional matrix representing a scalable encoded
bitstream, (j0,j1, …, jL-1) is the reference point that indicates which layers of
the L nested tiers are transmitted prior to transcoding (FF 3). We find
Mukherjee ‘925’s reference point to comprise an “adaptation point” and
agree with Appellants that Mukherjee ‘925 provides adequate support for
“the term ‘adaptation points’” in the present application (Reply Br. 2). We
then find that the claims in the present application are entitled to the earlier
effective filing date of Mukherjee ‘925. Thus, we agree with Appellants that
the Mukherjee-Proposals reference is not prior art since the Mukherjee ‘925
patent, filed July 15, 2002, pre-dates Mukherjee-Proposals.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting representative claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Kalra in view of Mukherjee-Proposal. Independent claims 33 and 34,
having similar claim language, and dependent claims 12-19, 37- 44
(depending from claim 11) fall with claim 11.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 11-19, 33, 34, and 37-44 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.

REVERSED
peb