11743013 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2016)

Ex Parte Singh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 2, 2016

11743013 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 111743,013 97001 7590 Sherman IP LLP (SRA) 1519 26th Street FILING DATE 05/01/2007 03/04/2016 Santa Monica, CA 90404 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Harkirat Singh 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. SAM2B.PAU.el 78 5924 EXAMINER LANIER, BENJAMINE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2437 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/04/2016 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): nielsen@sziplaw.com patent@shermanip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HARKIRAT SINGH, HUAI-RONG SHAO, XIANGPING QIN, and CHIU NGO Appeal2014-003898 Application 11/743,013 Technology Center 2400 Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. App. Br. 3. Appeal2014-003898 Application 11/743,013 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' contentions and the evidence of record, and we disagree with Appellants that the Examiner erred. We adopt the Examiner's reasoning, findings, and conclusions set forth in the Final Action and Answer. Claims 1, 15, and 2 8 are independent. Claim 1 recites, among other things, "transmitting the identified uncompressed video data at a second transmission rate if it is determined that the transmit buffer has sufficient data for transmitting at the second transmission rate, otherwise identifying additional data to transmit in the transmission data packet scheduled for transmission during the unused portion of the reserved time period." App. Br. 22. Independent claims 15 and 28 include similar limitations. Id. at 24-- 25, 26-27. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 15, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over a combination ofiwamura(US 2004/0184406 Al; published Sept. 23. 2004) and Wang (US 2003/0125932 Al; July 3, 2003). Final Act. 3--4. Appellants primarily contend I wamura does not teach or suggest the "transmitting" limitation recited in claims 1, 15, and 28 because Iwamura discloses that reducing the transfer rate disrupts the ability to utilize a stream and therefore needs to be avoided. See, e.g., App. Br. 11-12 (citing Iwamura ii 124). Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred. The portion of Iwamura cited by Appellants concerns Iwamura's fixed-rate streams. See Iwamura ii 124. But the Examiner finds, and we agree, Iwamura discloses not only fixed-rate streams but also rate-adjustable streams where the rate is 2 Appeal2014-003898 Application 11/743,013 adjusted to fit the available bandwidth. See Ans. 2; Iwamura il 92 ("When the stream is rate adjustable . . . the transmitter reduces the encoding rate to fit the new narrower available bandwidth ... thus providing graceful degradation in response to lowered bandwidth.") (emphasis added). The Examiner finds Iwamura's rate-adjustable streams teach the disputed limitation, see Ans. 2, and Appellants have not persuasively addressed this finding. Because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non- preferred embodiments, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred. See Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("[T]he fact that a specific embodiment is taught to be preferred is not controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered") (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)). We find Appellants remaining arguments unpersuasive because the arguments are conclusory and lack adequate supporting evidence and reasoning. See App. Br. 13-21; Reply Br. 10-14. Cf 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining appellants must advance substantive arguments beyond mere recitation of the claim elements and naked assertions that the corresponding elements are not found in the prior art). We therefore sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-36. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-36 is affirmed. 3 Appeal2014-003898 Application 11/743,013 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F.R. Â§ 1.13 6( a )(1 ). AFFIRMED 4