Ex Parte Shelby et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2017

13707172 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2017)

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.
13/707,172 12/06/2012 Kevin A. Shelby 5860-01305 1060
35690 7590 09/29/2017
MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
P.O. BOX 398
AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398
EXAMINER
BECK, LERON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2017 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN A. SHELBY, PETER J. NYSEN,
and MICHAEL B. DOERR1
Appeal 2015-004810
Application 13/707,172
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN P. PINKERTON, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
JOHN D. HAMMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1—24, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief and the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We are persuaded by
Appellants’ contention that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1, 8, 12, 13, 20, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the
combined teachings of Strode2 and Lin3 do not teach or suggest “wherein the
1 Appellants identify Coherent Logix Incorporated as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Strode et al. (US 2004/0028076 Al; published Feb. 12, 2004) (“Strode”).
3 Lin et al. (US 2007/0211655 Al; published Sept. 13, 2007) (“Lin”).
Appeal 2015-004810
Application 13/707,172
indication that the second information remains uncoded according to the first
type of error correction coding signals to receivers that the second
information is processed according to the second service version of the
transport framework? (emphasis added to disputed feature), as recited in
claim 1 and as similarly recited in claims 8, 12, 13, 20, and 24.4 App. Br.
11-13.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on the combination of Strode
and Lin. See Final Act. 3—6. In that regard, the Examiner finds, and we
agree, Lin teaches the first information comprises a first service version and
the second audiovisual information comprises a second service version. Id.
at 6 (citing Lin 110). Appellants argue, however, and we agree, the
Examiner did not address the disputed feature of claim 1 in the Final Action.
See App. Br. 11.
In the Answer, after quoting the disputed limitation of claim 1, the
Examiner finds Strode teaches “the processed second information remains
uncoded according to the first type of error correction coding.” Ans. 17
(citing Strode 1 58,11. 20—22). The Examiner also finds Strode teaches
“generating control information indicating that the second information is
uncoded according to the first type of error correction coding” and
“therefore signaling that the normal data packets (i.e. second audiovisual
stream) is not robustly encoded.” Id. (citing Strode H 32, 48, 49, 79). The
Examiner further finds Appellants are arguing limitations not in the claim by
arguing the Examiner does not address, and the references do not teach, the
feature of “indicating a service version of transport framework using the
4 Although Appellants make other arguments in the Appeal Brief, we need
not address them because we find this issue is dispositive.
2
Appeal 2015-004810
Application 13/707,172
presence or absence of a particular type of error correction coding.” Id. at
18.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments the Examiner erred.
First, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner did not address the
disputed feature of claim 1 in the Final Action. App. Br. 11. In that regard,
we note the Examiner also fails to address the disputed feature in the Answer
because the Examiner merely finds Strode teaches “signaling that the normal
data packets (i.e. second audiovisual stream) [are] not robustly encoded”
(see Ans. 17), which is different from the disputed feature of “signaling]
that the second information is processed according to the second service
version of the transport framework.” Second, the Examiner’s finding that
Appellants are arguing limitations not in the claims is erroneous because
claim 1 expressly recites generating control information “wherein the
indication that the second information remains uncoded according to the first
type of error correction coding signals to receivers that the second
information is processed according to the second service version of the
transport framework.” App. Br. 18 (Claims App’x). Third, Appellants
argue, and we agree, “[t]here does not appear to be any basis in Strode or
Lin for the concept of signaling a particular service version of transport
framework using the absence of a particular type of error correction coding.”
Id. at 11.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, 12,
13, 20, and 24, and dependent claims 2—7, 9—11, 14—19, and 21—23.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—24.
REVERSED
3