Ex Parte Richardson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2014

10587111 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN WILLIAM RICHARDSON
and JENS CAHNBLEY
____________

Appeal 2011-012532
Application 10/587,111
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOHN A. EVANS, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 25, 28-34, 36, and 39-452 as obvious.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.3

1 The Real Party in Interest is Thomson Licensing.
2 App. Br. 14-16.
3 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed June 23, 2011 (“App.
Appeal 2011-012532
Application 10/587,111

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a method of embedding Parameter Set
information into a Hint Track of an Advanced Video Coding (AVC) file.
See Abstract.
Claims 25 and 36 are independent; Claims 1-24, 26, 27, 35, 37, 38,
46, and 47 are canceled. App. Br. 14-16. An understanding of the invention
can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 25, which is reproduced
below:
25. A method for streaming a file containing video
information, comprising the step of:
embedding parameter information for facilitating
streaming of the video information by embedding the parameter
information in a Session Description Protocol (SDP) payload of
a hint track of the file, the file also holding the video
information such that the parameter information resides
separate from the video information so that the parameter
information can be streamed independent of the video
information.
References
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Jones US 6,134,243 Oct. 17, 2000
Visharam US 2004/0006575 A1 Jan. 8, 2004
Mononen US 2005/0004968 A1 Jan. 6, 2005
Toby Walker and David Singer, First ideas on the storage of AVC
content in MP4, International Organization for Standardization, “Coding of

Br.”); Reply Brief filed August 10, 2011 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer
mailed July 26, 2011 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed April 25, 2011
(“Final Rej.”); and the original Specification filed June 20, 2008 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2011-012532
Application 10/587,111

3
Moving Pictures and Audio,” ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, MPEG2001/
N4858 (May 2002) (“Walker”).
The claims stand rejected as follows4:
1. Claims 25, 32, 34, 36, 43, and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Jones and Visharam. Ans. 4-6.
2. Claims 28 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Jones, Visharam, and Mononen. Ans. 6-7.
3. Claims 29-31, 33, 40-42, and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Jones, Visharam,5 and Walker.6 Ans. 8-10.

ISSUES ON APPEAL
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the issue presented on appeal is
whether the Examiner erred in finding the asserted combinations of
references teach or suggest “embedding the parameter information in a
Session Description Protocol (SDP) payload of a hint track of the file.”
App. Br. 8-9; see also Reply. Br. 2.

4 Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the
appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
5 The Examiner omits Visharam from the statement of the rejection, but
includes that reference in the narrative.
6 The Examiner refers to Walker as “N4858.” Ans. 8.
Appeal 2011-012532
Application 10/587,111

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants’
conclusions.
CLAIMS 25, 32, 34, 36, 43, AND 45
Claims 25, 32, 34, 36, 43, and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Jones and Visharam. Ans. 4-6. The Examiner
finds that “Jones is silent on embedding the parameter information in a
Session Description Protocol (SDP) payload,” as claimed in independent
Claims 25 and 36. The Examiner finds that in an analogous field of
endeavor, Visharam discloses specifically embedding the parameter
information in a Session Description Protocol (SDP). Ans. 5 (citing
Visharam ¶¶ 0047 and 0172).
Appellants contend that Jones makes only a single disclosure
regarding the term “SDP”:
The hint track is related to its base media track by a single track
reference declaration. (RTP does not permit multiplexing of
media within a single RTP stream). The sample description for
RTP declares the maximum packet size which this hint track
will generate. Session description (SAP/SDP) information is
stored in user-data atoms in the track.
App. Br. 9 (citing Jones, col. 24, ll. 51-57). Appellants contend that Jones
disclosure does not relate to embedding parameter information in the SDP
payload, as claimed. Id. Similarly, Appellants contend that Visharam
contains only a single mention of the term “SDP”:
In one embodiment, the capability of a decoder to provide any
or all of the enhanced capabilities described in a SEI
[supplemental enhancement information] message is signaled
Appeal 2011-012532
Application 10/587,111

5
by external means (e.g., Recommendation H.245 or SDP).
Decoders that do not provide the enhanced capabilities may
simply discard SEI messages.
App. Br. 9 (citing Visharam ¶ 0172). Appellants contend that Visharam is
silent regarding embedding parameter information in an SDP payload, as
claimed. Id.
The Examiner initially finds that neither Jones, nor Visharam, alone
discloses the disputed limitation “embedding the parameter information in a
session Description Protocol (SDP) payload of a hint track of the file.” Ans.
10-11. However, the Examiner finds that Jones discloses that an SDP,
which includes a header and payload, is one of the user-atoms in the hint
track and that the generation of the hint track would incorporate the insertion
of payload specific headers. The Examiner finds that Visharam teaches
embedding SEI information (which the Examiner equates to the parameter
information) in the SDP. Thus, the Examiner finds the combination teaches
the limitation. Ans. 11.
Appellants reply that Jones is silent regarding embedding parameter
information and that Visharam discloses the desirability of including
parameter set metadata into a file associated with the media data using a
specific media file format. However, teaching placing parameter set data
into a specific media data file does not teach placing parameter set data into
a Session Description Protocol (SDP) payload of a hint track. Visharam
specifically embeds parameter set data, but in a location other than that
claimed. Reply Br. 2.
We find Appellants persuasive that the combination of Jones and
Visharam fails to teach the claimed “embedding the parameter information
Appeal 2011-012532
Application 10/587,111

6
in a Session Description Protocol (SDP) payload of a hint track of the file.”
We, therefore, decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 25, 32, 34, 36, 43,
and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We decline Appellants’ invitation (App. Br.
10) to reach the merits of canceled Claims 26, 27, 37, 38, 46, and 47. See
App. Br. 14-16.
CLAIMS 28 AND 39
Claims 28 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Jones, Visharam, and Mononen. The Examiner finds that Jones and
Visharam teach as discussed above and Mononen is not cited in that regard.
Ans. 6-7.
For the reasons discussed above, we decline to sustain the rejection of
Claims 28 and 39.
CLAIMS 29-31, 33, 40-42, AND 44
Claims 29-31, 33, 40-42, and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Jones, Visharam, and Walker. The Examiner finds
that Jones and Visharam teach as discussed above and Walker is not cited in
that regard. Ans. 8-10.
For the reasons discussed above, we decline to sustain the rejection of
Claims 29-31, 33, 40-42, and 44.

DECISION
The rejection of Claims 25, 28-34, 36, and 39-45 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

Appeal 2011-012532
Application 10/587,111

7
msc