Ex Parte Schneider et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 17, 2013

11398112 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2013)

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.
11/398,112 04/05/2006 John C. Schneider 114583-146092 7676
60172 7590 07/17/2013
SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 3400
SEATTLE, WA 98101-4010
EXAMINER
MUSA, ABDELNABI O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2478
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/17/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN C. SCHNEIDER, RICHARD A. ROLLMAN,
MILEN NANKOV, and ETHAN HUGG
____________

Appeal 2011-003083
Application 11/398,112
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JAMESON LEE, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and
MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 5-12, 15-21, 27-29, 32, and 35-39. Claims 2-4, 13, 14,
22-26, 30, 31, 33, and 34 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2011-003083
Application 11/398,112

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention generally relates to improving compression of a
stream of data by multiplexing the stream of data and combining two or
more of the multiplexed streams. See generally Abstract, Spec. ¶ 0001.
Claim 1 is illustrative (disputed limitations in italics):
1. A method for streaming encoded values representing a stream
of data, the method comprising:
receiving by a device a stream of encoded values representing
the stream of data for transmission;
splitting the stream of encoded values, by the device, into a
plurality of substreams based on first one or more criteria to improve
compression of the received stream of encoded values, wherein the
first one or more criteria includes a criteria associated with metadata
describing the stream of encoded values;
selectively recombining, by the device, a portion of the plurality
of substreams based on second one or more criteria to further improve
compression of the received stream of encoded values, wherein the
second criteria are different from the first criteria, and unassociated
with metadata describing the stream of encoded values; and
compressing, by the device, the resultant plurality of
substreams for transmission.

THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 10, 21, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite. Ans. 4.
1

2. Claims 1, 5-12, 15-19, 21, 27-29, 32, and 35-38 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yogeshwar (US

1
Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed June 11,
2010 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed Sept. 8, 2010
(“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed Nov. 8, 2010 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2011-003083
Application 11/398,112

3
2005/0232497 A1; published Oct. 20, 2005) and Eldridge (US
2003/0123071 A1; published July 3, 2003). Ans. 5-11.
3. Claims 20 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Yogeshwar, Eldridge, and Jagadish (US 6,012,062; issued
Jan. 4, 2000).
2
Ans. 12-13.

THE INDEFINITENESS REJECTION
The Examiner finds that the term “wherein the first one or more
criteria include a criterion associated with metadata” is indefinite because it
fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim what kind of criteria (i.e.,
the recited “first one or more,” “the second one or more,” or a “third”) is
associated with the metadata. Ans. 4.
Appellants argues that the wherein clause properly refers to the “first
one or more criteria” recited earlier in the claim. App. Br. 7-8.

ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 10, 21, and 29 by
finding that “wherein the first one or more criteria include a criterion
associated with metadata,” as recited in claim 1, and substantially similar

2
In the Grounds of Rejection, claims 20 and 39 are rejected in view of
Yogeshwar and Jagadish. However, claims 20 and 39 depend from
independent claims 10 and 29, respectively (App. Br. 16, 19), which stand
rejected in view of Yogeshwar and Eldridge (Ans. 8-10, 12-13). In
responding to Appellants’ arguments regarding claims 20 and 39, the
Examiner refers to the combination of Yogeshwar and Eldridge. Ans. 17.
Accordingly, we understand claims 20 and 39 to stand rejected over
Yogeshwar, Eldridge, and Jagadish.
Appeal 2011-003083
Application 11/398,112

4
limitations in claims 10, 21, and 29, is indefinite under § 112, second
paragraph?

ANALYSIS
We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 10,
21, and 29 under § 112, second paragraph. As Appellants correctly point,
the phrase “the first one or more criteria” finds its antecedent basis in the
“first one or more criteria” on which the splitting of the stream into a
plurality of substreams is based. App. Br. 7. As such, the “criteria
associated with metadata” must be one of the “first one or more criteria.”
The claim further requires that the “second one or more criteria” be
“unassociated with metadata.” Claim 1. Thus, the “criteria associated with
metadata” cannot be one of the “second one or more criteria.” Because the
claim particularly points out that it is the “first one or more criteria” that is
“associated with metadata,” Appellants have persuaded us of error.
We therefore do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 10, 21, and 29
under § 112, second paragraph.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER
YOGESHWAR AND ELDRIDGE
The Examiner finds that Yogeshwar discloses every recited element
of representative claim 1 except for the “selectively recombining, by the
device, a portion of the plurality of substreams based on second one or more
criteria to further improve compression of the received stream of encoded
values, wherein the second criteria are different from the first criteria, and
unassociated with metadata describing the stream of encoded values,” but
Appeal 2011-003083
Application 11/398,112

5
cites Eldridge as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would
have been obvious. Ans. 5-7.
Appellants argue that (1) Eldridge does not teach “selectively
recombining” because (a) Eldridge does not recombine based on a second
one or more criteria that are “different from the first criteria;” (b) Eldridge
does not recombine data from “substreams;” and (c) Eldridge does not teach
or suggest “recombining” of anything; and (2) Yogeshwar teaches away
from combination with Eldridge. App. Br. 8-12.

ISSUES
(1) Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
finding that Eldridge would have taught “selectively recombining, by the
device, a portion of the plurality of sub streams based on second one or more
criteria to further improve compression of the received stream of encoded
values, wherein the second criteria are different from the first criteria, and
unassociated with metadata describing the stream of encoded values?”
(2) Does Yogeshwar teach away from combination with Eldridge?

ANALYSIS
“selectively recombining”
On this record, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative claim 1.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Eldridge does not
teach the “selectively recombining” step because Eldridge’s “strips” are
recombined “in the same configuration and according to the same criteria,
namely color, as they were separated by.” App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 2-3. The
Appeal 2011-003083
Application 11/398,112

6
Examiner relies upon Yogeshwar, not Eldridge, for the “first one or more
criteria” on which the splitting of the stream is based. Ans. 5. One cannot
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Yogeshwar’s
source format stream is split into compressed substreams based on criteria
associated with metadata (i.e., the metadata describing the substreams). Id.
Yogeshwar’s metadata describing the source format stream is different from
the “second one or more criteria” taught in Eldridge, such as color (on which
the recombination of strips is based) or compression ratio (on which the
recombination of upper plane, lower plane, selector plane, and rendering
hints is based). Ans. 6-7, 14-15 (citing Eldridge Figs. 4, 6, ¶¶ 0020, 0022,
0024, 0044, and 0048). As a result, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s finding that Eldridge teaches a “second one or more criteria”
that is “different from the first criteria.”
We also are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Eldridge does
not recombine data from “substreams” because compressed data is “kept in a
single main memory and then pulled out through direct memory access”
(“DMA”). App. Br. 9. As an initial matter, the Examiner relies upon
Yogeshwar, not Eldridge, for the recited “substreams.” Ans. 5-6. One
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d at
426. Even assuming that the Examiner had relied upon Eldridge, we would
not be persuaded of error because the Specification does not define
“substreams” to exclude data kept in main memory or data accessed by
DMA. Indeed, the Specification explicitly states that “substreams” “may be
Appeal 2011-003083
Application 11/398,112

7
implemented in any manner known in the art. Spec. ¶ 0028 (“The
substreams may be created and implemented as any number of data
structures, including buffers, streams, arrays, queues, and stacks, but may be
implemented in any manner known in the art.”). Many of the exemplary
implementations would be stored in main memory. As a result, we are not
persuaded of that Eldridge does not recombine data from “substreams.”
We also are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Eldridge does
not teach “recombining” because the uncompressed strips remain color-
separated or are recombined only after being decompressed. App. Br. 9-10;
Reply Br. 3-4. Appellants’ argument does not address the Examiner’s
findings with respect to paragraphs 0044 and 0048 of Eldridge, which
disclose selectively recombining portions of a “plurality of substreams”—
i.e., the upper plane, lower plane, selector plane, and rendering hints. Ans.
6-7, 15; see also Eldridge ¶ 0042 (“A strip 62 contains multiple substreams
and there are as many as four (rendering hints, an upper plane of data,
selector instructions, and a lower plane of data).” (emphasis added)).
Specifically, portions of the upper plane and lower plane are selectively
recombined based on “a second one or more criteria”—i.e., a guaranteed
compression ratio of 10:1 full page compression and 3.2:1 for 8-line strips—
to further improve compression. Eldridge ¶ 0048. Eldridge teaches that:
The amount of compression is dependent on the data, and the
amount of compression is not adjustable. If the compression is
not sufficient, a lossy compression must be used for some parts
of the image.
Eldridge ¶ 0044; see also Eldridge ¶ 0049 (“If the data in the upper plane
does not compress well enough, the data is compressed in the lower plane.
If the selector or rendering hint plane does not meet the guarantee, it is
Appeal 2011-003083
Application 11/398,112

8
simplified and recompressed.”). Eldridge’s guaranteed compression ratio
criterion is “to further improve compression.” As a result, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that Eldridge teaches
“selectively recombining.”

Teaches away
Nor are we persuaded by Appellants argument that Yogeshwar
teaches away from Eldridge—or combination with any selective
recombination—because Yogeshwar requires that substreams be
“completely recombined.” App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 4. Appellants’
characterization of Yogeshwar as requiring that its separate audio and video
substreams “be completely recombined” is incomplete. App. Br. 10.
Yogeshwar explicitly contemplates transcoding to a “lossy” format. See,
e.g., Yogeshwar ¶ 0033 (“[F]rom a first lossy compression format to a
second lossy compression format.”). “Lossy compression can reduce bitrate
more by removing more quality, but the lost quality cannot be restored.”
Yogeshwar ¶ 0008. Yogeshwar teaches that a portion of the audio and video
substreams received in a source format (e.g., MPEG-2) are discarded during
the transcoding to the target format (e.g., WMV9). Yogeshwar ¶¶ 0057,
0061, 0071, 0073, 0079 (“A target format encoder re-compresses (530) the
uncompressed video, producing target format uncompressed video. . . . The
encoder independently makes various other decisions so as to reduce bitrate
without penalizing quality.”). Because portions of the audio and video
substreams are discarded in the transcoding process, the substreams are not
“completely recombined,” as Appellants argue. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4.
Rather, “portions” of those “plurality of substreams” are “selectively
Appeal 2011-003083
Application 11/398,112

9
recombin[ed]” to create the target format. As a result, we are not persuaded
that Yogeshwar teaches away from Eldridge.
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of (1) independent
claim 1; (2) independent claim 10, 21, and 29 which recite commensurate
limitations; and (3) dependent claims 5-9, 11, 12, 15-19, 27, 28, 32, and 35-
38 not separately argued with particularity.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER
YOGESHWAR, ELDRIDGE, AND JAGADISH
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 20
and 39. Ans. 12-13. Appellants refer to the arguments made in connection
with claim 1, and allege that Jagadish fails to cure those purported
deficiencies. App. Br. 12. However, we are not persuaded of the purported
deficiencies in Yogeshwar and Eldridge for the reasons previously
discussed.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner (1) erred in rejecting claims 1, 10, 21, and 29 under
§ 112; (2) did not err in rejecting claims 1, 5-12, 15-21, 27-29, 32, and 35-39
under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 5-12, 15-21, 27-29, 32,
and 35-39 is AFFIRMED.

Appeal 2011-003083
Application 11/398,112

10
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).

AFFIRMED

kis