Ex Parte Noh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

13072885 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/072,885 03/28/2011
95683 7590 09/02/2016
Ley dig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd, (Frankfurt office)
Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900
180 North Stetson Avenue
Chicago, IL 60601-6731
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeonghun Noh
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.
812296 6953
EXAMINER
BECKER, JOSEPH W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 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):
chgpatent@leydig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEONGHUN NOH, MINAR MAKAR, BERND GIROD,
FRANK HARTUNG, and JATINDER PAL SINGH
Appeal2014-009982
Application 13/072,885
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 13-15, and 17-21. Claims
2, 4, 7, 9-12, and 16 have been canceled. See App. Br. 10-12 (Claims
App'x). We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is The Board of Trustees
of the Leland Stanford Junior University and Deutsche Telekom AG. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2014-009982
Application 13/072,885
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention generally relates to distributing video
transcoding in a communication network. Spec. i-f 2. Claims 1 and 13,
which are illustrative, read as follows:
1. A method for streaming video data within a network,
wherein the video data includes a sequence of frames, the method
compnsmg:
encoding, at a plurality of parent devices, the sequence of
frames;
generating, at each of the plurality of parent devices, a
substream from the encoded frames, wherein each substream is
assigned an identifier, and wherein each substream includes a
common encoded frame and a portion of the encoded sequence
that does not overlap with other substreams of the plurality of
parent devices; and
transmitting the plurality of substreams to a receiver,
wherein the common encoded frame is transmitted to the receiver
by a parent device designated as a primary parent device, and
wherein in the event that the primary parent device becomes
unavailable, the common encoded frame is transmitted to the
receiver by a parent device other than the primary parent device.
13. A method for providing video data including a sequence
of frames, comprising:
receiving a plurality of encoded substreams, wherein each
encoded substream includes a common encoded frame and at
least a non-overlapping portion of the sequence of frames and
wherein each encoded substream is assigned an identifier;
recovering the sequence of frames by assembling the
plurality of substreams;
determining that at least one frame is missing in one of the
plurality of substreams in the non-overlapping portion; and
2
Appeal2014-009982
Application 13/072,885
selecting a replacement frame from the non-overlapping
portion of another substream so as to replace the at least one
missing frame, wherein the replacement frame is selected in
accordance with the identifier of the substream in which the at
least one frame is missing.
Rejections
Claims 13-15, 18, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Apostolopoulos (US 2002/0116715 Al; published
Aug. 22, 2002). Final Act. 2-7.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Martinian (US 200710121722
Al; published May 31, 2007) and Zuckerman (US 2010/0095184 Al;
published Apr. 15, 2010). Final Act. 8-11.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Apostolopoulos and Ke et al.,
Irrzprovirzg Video Trarzsrrzissiorz orz tlze Irzterrzet, IEEE Potentials 16-19
(2007). Final Act. 14--15.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Apostolopoulos and Martinian. Final
Act. 15.
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding that Apostolopoulos discloses
"receiving a plurality of encoded substreams, wherein each encoded
substream includes a common encoded frame and at least a non-overlapping
portion of the sequence of frames and wherein each encoded substream is
assigned an identifier," as recited in claim 13?
3
Appeal2014-009982
Application 13/072,885
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Martinian and
Zuckerman teaches or suggests "generating, at each of the plurality of parent
devices, a substream from the encoded frames, wherein each substream is
assigned an identifier, and wherein each substream includes a common
encoded frame and a portion of the encoded sequence that does not overlap
with other substreams of the plurality of parent devices," as recited in claim
1?
ANALYSIS
Claims 13-15, 18, 20, and 21
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13 because
"Apostolopoulos fails to disclose a plurality of substreams wherein each
substream of the plurality of substreams includes a common encoded frame,
as required by claim 13." App. Br. 4. Appellants contend Apostolopoulos,
instead, discloses "encoding two separate streams -- and odd frame data
stream and an even frame data stream -- which do not share a common
encoded frame." Id. (citing Apostolopoulos i-fi-1 57---60). We agree.
Claim 13 recites "wherein each encoded substream includes a
common encoded frame." Claim 13 (emphasis added). In the Advisory
Action, mailed Feb. 4, 2014 ("Adv. Act."), the Examiner states
"Apostolopoulos in i10059 explains that two different substreams, even and
odd frames, are both encoded depending on the I 1 frame. This I 1 frame is
then a common encoded frame for each substream despite not being a frame
included as part of each substream." Adv. Act. 2. (emphasis added)).
Thus, the Examiner acknowledges that Apostolopoulos does not disclose
each substream including a common encoded frame, as required by claim
4
Appeal2014-009982
Application 13/072,885
13. As such, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 13 and
claims 14, 15, 18, 20, and 21, which recite corresponding limitations.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 17, and 19
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
the combination of Martinian and Zuckerman does not teach or suggest that
each substream of the plurality of substreams includes a common encoded
frame, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 7-8; see also App. Br. 6. We agree.
Claim 1 recites "wherein each substream includes a common encoded
frame." Claim 1 (emphasis added). In the Advisory Action, mailed Feb. 4,
2014, the Examiner states "Martinian in Fig. 20 shows that different
substreams, s0-s7 each displaying a different view, are all encoded
depending on the 10 frame. This 10 frame is then a common encoded frame
for each substream despite not being a frame included as part of each
substream." Adv. Act. 3. (emphasis added)). Thus, the Examiner
acknowledges that Martinian does not teach each substream including a
common encoded frame, as required by claim 1. Further, the Examiner does
not make any finding regarding whether Martinian suggests this feature or
whether it would have been obvious based on the teachings of Martinian.
See Final Act. 8-9; Ans. 18-19. The Examiner also does not find that
Zuckerman cures this deficiency in the disclosure of Martinian. See id. As
such, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and claims 3, 5,
6, 8, 17, and 19, which recite corresponding limitations.
5
Appeal2014-009982
Application 13/072,885
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 13-15, 18, 20, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 17, and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
6