Ex Parte Tabatabai et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 29, 2010

10038142 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 29, 2010)

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.
10/038,142 10/22/2001 Ali J. Tabatabai 80398.P433 7456
8791 7590 11/30/2010
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP
1279 OAKMEAD PARKWAY
SUNNYVALE, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
BENGZON, GREG C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2444
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ALI J. TABATABAI, TOBY WALKER,
MOHAMMED ZUBAIR VISHARAM,
and HAWLEY K. RISING III
____________

Appeal 2009-006541
Application 10/038,142
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MARC S, HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK and
THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-90. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-006541
Application 10/038,142

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is a method and apparatus for enabling
data related to multimedia content to be encoded and transmitted (Spec. ¶
[0002]). Including an update command inside an access unit allows an
encoder to send descriptions statically or dynamically (Spec. ¶ [0039]).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A computerized method comprising:

forming an access unit corresponding to a fragment of a
multimedia description, the access unit being a network
transmission data structure comprising a fragment update, the
fragment update comprising a fragment update command that
specifies a type of command for execution by a decoder to
update the multimedia description; and

forming an encoded data stream from the access unit.

REFERENCES
Srivastava US 6,549,922 B1 Apr. 15, 2003
Paek US 7,143,434 B1 Nov. 28, 2006
Vandersluis US 7,165,073 B2 Jan. 16, 2007

XPath Specifications, News Release: World Wide Web Consortium Issues
XSL Transformations (XSLT) and XML Path Language, Nov. 16, 1999

The Examiner rejected claims 1-90 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as being indefinite.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 7-35, 37-65, and 67-90 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Paek and Vandersluis.
The Examiner rejected claims 6, 36, and 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Paek, Vandersluis, Srivastava, and XPath.
Appeal 2009-006541
Application 10/038,142

3
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the claims indefinite
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (App. Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 2).2
Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in finding Paek discloses
descriptions updating fragments of multimedia information and Vandersluis
does not disclose Appellants’ claimed fragment update command (App. Br.
7; Reply Br. 3-4).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Paek teaches all the features of Appellants’
claimed invention except for the fragment update “comprising a fragment
update command wherein the fragment update command specifies a type of
command for execution by a decoder to update a multimedia description,”
but that Vandersluis teaches this feature (Ans. 6). The Examiner then finds
the motivation for combining Paek and Vandersluis would have been
obvious because Paek discloses content exchange for MPEG-7 video
editing, and Vandersluis discloses flexibly selecting only those portions of a
data file that suit a particular purpose at the time (Ans. 7).
We find, however, the Examiner has not set forth rationale as to how
these two references can be combined. Rather, the Examiner has merely
made statements regarding the access unit and the fragment update, but has
not set forth how the video content in Paek corresponds to an access unit that
is a network transmission data structure including a fragment update, as
claimed by Appellants (Ans. 6; see App. Br. 7). Further, the Examiner has
not explained how an update command, in Vandersluis, for manipulating

2 The Supplemental Appeal Brief filed on February 13, 2008, is referenced
throughout this opinion.
Appeal 2009-006541
Application 10/038,142

4
hierarchical data as applied to XML data streams teaches or suggests the
claimed fragment update command (Ans. 18; see App. Br. 7). That is, the
Examiner has merely provided arguments without explanation and therefore,
has not met the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Thus,
claims 1-90 are not obvious over the collective teachings of the cited
references.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as Appellants pointed out, the Examiner has not responded to
Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 2), which we find
persuasive. We agree with Appellants’ assertions that the terms “access
unit” and “fragment update command” are not indefinite (App. Br. 5-6).
Thus, claims 1-90 are not indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-90 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-90 is reversed.

REVERSED
KIS

BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP
1279 OAKMEAD PARKWAY
SUNNYVALE, CA 94085-4040