Ex Parte Nallur et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 11, 2012

10623683 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 11, 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.
10/623,683 07/21/2003 Ramesh Nallur 60374.0015US01/968335 5317
62658 7590 06/11/2012
MERCHANT & GOULD
SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY
P.O. BOX 2903
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903
EXAMINER
MONTOYA, OSCHTA I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/11/2012 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 RAMESH NALLUR and ARTURO A. RODRIGUEZ
____________

Appeal 2010-000305
Application 10/623,683
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-40 and 42 (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2010-000305
Application 10/623,683

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants claimed invention is directed to providing seamless
transition between video play-back modes (also known as trick-modes)
(Spec. 1:4-5; Abstract).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for providing a seamless transition between
video play-back modes, comprising the steps of:

storing a video stream in memory;

receiving a request for a trick mode operation;

responsive to receiving the request for a trick mode
operation, using information provided by a video decoder to
identify a first video picture to be decoded;

decoding the first video picture; and

outputting the first video picture to a display device.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-14 and 16-40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Moeller (US 5,828,370. Oct. 27, 1998).
The Examiner rejected claim 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Demas (US Patent App. Pub. No.: 2003/0093800 A1, May
15, 2003).
The Examiner rejected claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Moeller in view of Hallberg (US 7,027,713 B1, Apr. 11,
2006, filed Nov. 30, 1999).

Appeal 2010-000305
Application 10/623,683

3
ANALYSIS
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102
The Examiner finds Moeller teaches all the limitations of Appellants’
claim 1. Appellants assert Moeller fails to teach a video decoder identifies a
first video picture to be decoded. That is, Moeller does not teach a video
decoder provides presentation timestamps; rather, a media server 50, located
remotely from a subscriber, provides the timestamps. Appellants
acknowledge the media server may contain an MPEG decoder, but this is an
optional feature. (App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2.)
As found by the Examiner, Appellants’ own Background of the
Invention section of the Specification teaches it is known that a video
decoder is required to decode compressed video data (Ans. 15-16; Spec.
1:23-27). Additionally, the Examiner concedes Appellants’ argument that
Moeller’s media server provides time stamps is correct; however “this is true
for every MPEG stream since the timestamps are within the stream,” and as
shown in Appellants’ Figure 1, “MPEG-2 streams are sent from the headend
to the set top box” (Ans. 15). Moeller also teaches information about the
video sequence is required by the decoder (Ans. 4; Moeller, col. 3, ll. 9-13;
21-23). Thus, Moeller reads on the claim 1 limitation “a video decoder to
identify a first video picture to the decoder.” Therefore, in light of the
Examiner’s findings (Ans. 15-16), we affirm the rejection of claim 1, and the
claims dependent thereon and not argued.
The Examiner finds Moeller teaches the “video steams” recited in
independent claims 21. Appellants argue index lookup tables are not video
streams, Moeller teaches away from using index lookup tables in a video
Appeal 2010-000305
Application 10/623,683

4
stream, and the Examiner admits video lookup tables ensure seamless
transition between streams (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3).
However, as the Examiner finds, Moeller “clearly teaches that the
server outputs normal play streams and trick-play streams in order to enable
a seamless transition to the trick-play operation.” The Examiner correctly
asserts the index lookup tables in Moeller have nothing to do with the
normal and trick play streams. (Ans. 16-17.) Therefore, in light of the
Examiner’s findings, we affirm the rejection of independent claim 21 and
the claims dependent therefrom and not separately argued.
The Examiner finds Moeller teaches all the limitations recited in
claims 28 and 35. Appellants contend the sequence headers in Moeller are
not transport packets. Additionally, Appellants assert Moeller’s presentation
timestamps are not a time value that corresponds to a current video picture,
as claimed, and are contained in the sequence headers to provide a time base
for a video sequence (App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 3).
However, as the Examiner finds, by Appellants’ own definition, any
MPEG-2 packet is a stuffing transport packet (STP) as it includes a
packetized elementary stream (PES) header, a user start code, and a time
value (Ans. 17). Appellants do not rebut this finding, and merely repeat
Moeller’s sequence headers cannot be an STP and Moeller’s presentation
timestamps provide a time base for a video sequence and do not extract a
time value corresponding to a current video picture (App. Br. 11; Reply Br.
3). Therefore, in light of the Examiner’s findings, we affirm the rejection of
claims 28 and 35.
Appellants assert Demas does not teach parsing an STP to extract a
time value corresponding to a decoded picture; rather, it discloses a transport
Appeal 2010-000305
Application 10/623,683

5
stream (TS) formatted control packet that calculates an entry point picture
(App. Br. 15).
The Examiner finds, however, Demas teaches an entry point
calculated from a transport stream based on parameters that indicate a trick
play mode, current location, and a number of possible entry points, etc., and
a start code index table (SCIT) that includes, among other things, a start
code value (Ans. 19). Thus, we agree with the Examiner “[S]ince a time
value is extracted from the transport stream in order to create the SCIT, the
claim limitation is met” (Ans. 19). In light of the Examiner’s findings, we
affirm the rejection of claim 42.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellants argue claim 15 is allowable as it depends from claim 1
(App. Br. 15-16). As no arguments were provided regarding Hallberg and
claim 1 was found anticipated, we affirm the obviousness rejection of claim
15.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-40 and 42 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)(2010).

AFFIRMED

Vsh/pgc