Ex Parte Zdepski

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 27, 2012

10987042 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte JOEL ZDEPSKI
________________

Appeal 2010-003826
Application 10/987,042
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before THOMAS S. HAHN, BRUCE R. WINSOR,
and GLENN J. PERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.

PERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003826
Application 10/987,042

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-54. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

Invention
The rejected and appealed claims relate to communicating primary
and secondary content streams to a remote unit (e.g., a video stream). The
secondary content stream includes plural tertiary content streams (e.g., video
streams of commercials, advertisements, etc.) The secondary stream is
formed so that the primary content and tertiary contents are formed as a
“mosaic” of images in each frame of video. Each tertiary content is
displayed on a portion of each frame. See generally Abstract, Spec. ¶
[0004]. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below with the disputed
portion highlighted:
1. A method to communicate content to at
least one remote unit, the method comprising:
receiving a primary content stream for
communication to the remote unit;
receiving a plurality of tertiary content
streams;
combining the plurality of tertiary content
streams into a secondary content stream so that
each frame of the plurality of tertiary content
streams is provided in parallel as a portion of a
single frame of a motion picture provided by the
secondary content stream;
selectively communicating one of the
primary content stream and the secondary content
stream to the remote unit;
Appeal 2010-003826
Application 10/987,042

3
automatically identifying a tertiary content
stream of the plurality of tertiary content streams
based on reference parameters provided at the
remote unit;
extracting a subset corresponding to the
identified tertiary content stream; and
communicating the extracted tertiary content
stream to a display device.

Evidence Considered
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
US 2002/0120498 A1 Gordon Aug. 29, 2002
US 2002/0144263 A1 Eldering Oct. 3, 2002
US 2004/0025174 A1 Cerrato Feb. 5, 2004
US 2004/0060061 A1 Parker Mar. 25, 2004

The Rejections
1. Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12-21, 23, 24, 26-35, 37, 39-44, and 46-54 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Eldering in view of Cerrato in further view of Parker. Ans. 4.
2. Claims 8, 11, 22, 25, 36, 38, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Eldering in view of Cerrato in
further view of Parker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in
view of Gordon. Ans. 20.

Appeal 2010-003826
Application 10/987,042

4
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER ELDERING, CERRATO AND
PARKER

CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that all of the claim limitations are found in the
combined teachings of Eldering, Cerrato and Parker. Ans. 4.
Appellant challenges only the Examiner-cited teaching found in the
Parker reference and not those of the other references of record and correctly
notes that the Examiner relies on Parker to teach the disputed “parallel”
claim limitation. Br. 26. Appellant argues that “Parker does not provide a
plurality of tertiary content streams in parallel,” but rather that they are
provided serially to an end user. Br. 27 (emphases omitted).
The Examiner disagrees and finds that Parker teaches the “parallel”
limitation. Ans. 25-27.

ISSUE
The only issue presented by Appellant’s contentions is whether
“parallel” as used in the claims distinguishes from the teachings of Parker.

ANALYSIS
Claim 1 requires that “tertiary content streams [be] provided in
parallel as a portion of a single frame of a motion picture” (emphasis
added). As we describe below, we construe the meaning of the claim 1
recited term “parallel” as reading on Parker.
App
App

“par
below
Pa
from
signa
App
expl
eal 2010-0
lication 10
In suppo
allel” limit
. Br. 27.
rker’s Figu
Appellan
each of v
ls into a c
ellant quot
ains operat
[0029] T
available
03826
/987,042
rt of Appe
ation, App

re 1 is a b
vid
t points o
ideo signa
omposite v
es from Pa
ion of the
he video
video m
llant’s pos
ellant poin
lock diagr
eo signals
ut that Par
l tuners 20
ideo sign
rker’s par
block diag
multiplex
ultiplexer
5
ition that
ts to Park
am of a sy
. (Parker ¶

ker’s mult
A – 20D a
al.” Br. 27
agraph [00
ram show
er 30 ma
which can
Parker doe
er’s Figur
stem for a
[0022]).
iplexer 30
nd “aggre
(citing Pa
29], set fo
n in Figur
y be any
receive
s not teach
e 1, reprod
ggregating
receives o
gates the v
rker ¶ [00
rth below
e 1.
commerc
multiple v
the
uced

multiple
utputs
ideo
25]).
, which
ially
ideo
Appeal 2010-003826
Application 10/987,042

6
signals and output a gridded composite video signal composed
of the input video signals. Video multiplexers such as those
used in the surveillance camera industry or in the video security
industry may be suitable for this purpose. Preferably, the video
multiplexer is able to multiplex and output color and
substantially full motion video signals.
Appellant concludes that Parker’s multiplexer 30 acts as an electronic
switch and that the output from a multiplexer is nothing more than a
succession of serial images. The signals output from multiplexer 30 are
presented serially (rather than in “parallel”) to an end user. Br. 28.
Appellant makes no mention in this explanation of Parker’s encoder 40 and
how images are ultimately presented on Parker’s display 67.
The term “parallel” was introduced into claim 1 (and the other
independent claims) by amendment on December 4, 2008. Amended claim
1 from that amendment is reproduced below including Appellant’s insertions
indicated by underlining and deletions indicated by strike through as it
appears in the amendment.
1. (Currently Amended) A method to
communicate content to at least one remote unit,
the method comprising:
receiving a primary content stream for
communication to the remote unit;
receiving a plurality of tertiary content
streams;
combining the plurality of tertiary content
streams into a secondary content stream so that the
each frame of the plurality of tertiary content
streams is provided in parallel as a subset portion
of a single frame of a motion picture provided by
the secondary content stream;
selectively communicating one of the
primary content stream and the secondary content
stream to the remote unit;
Appeal 2010-003826
Application 10/987,042

7
automatically identifying a tertiary content
stream of the plurality of tertiary content streams
based on reference parameters provided at the
remote unit;
extracting a subset corresponding to the
identified tertiary content stream; and
communicating the extracted tertiary content
stream to a display device.
According to Appellant’s remarks made at the time of amendment, the
“parallel” limitation was added to distinguish from the Eldering “single
streams.” Amendment of Dec. 4, 2008, at page 18. We reviewed
Appellant’s Specification, in particular with respect to the text explaining the
portion of claim 1 amended to include the word “parallel.” The
Specification does not use the word “parallel” at all in describing the
components alleged to produce a “parallel” signal. Also, the word “parallel”
did not appear in any of the originally filed claims in the context now being
argued. Even though there is no apparent basis in the originally filed
Specification for the term “parallel” as inserted by amendment into claim 1,
the Examiner did not raise the issue of “new matter.” Appellant’s entire
argument is now based on the meaning of “parallel” as introduced by
amendment into claim 1.
Appellant argues that the Parker Figure 1 block diagram does not
create a “parallel” video stream. It is therefore useful to look at Appellant’s
Figure 3 block diagram, reproduced below, that provides an exemplary
implementation for generating a secondary video stream.
App
App

Ap

108
enco
mult
mod
to th
Park
eal 2010-0
lication 10
plication
content
We note
to generate
der 526 an
iplexer (M
ulator box
e applicati
er, below.
03826
/987,042
Figure 3 is
video stre
from Figu
the secon
d multiple
UX 50). T
78. The e
on is comp
a block d
am from a
Specific
re 3 that t
dary video
xed with o
he resulti
nd result o
ared with
8
iagram sho
plurality o
ation ¶ [00

he inventio
stream w
ther data
ng signal i
f Appellan
a result of
wing gen
f tertiary
08].
n relies o
hich is the
and comm
s then mo
t’s video
video pro
erating a s
video strea
n a mosaic
n encoded
ands by a
dulated by
processing
cessing ac
econdary
ms.
generator
by an
a
according
cording to

App
App

The
A

whic
arran
ques
is pr
prov
teach
abov

are n
contr
eal 2010-0
lication 10
Appellan
above fig
ppellant’s
Both Ap
h is a com
gement th
tion requir
ovided in p
ided by the
es “parall
e.
Thus, w
ot persuad
ary. For e
In respo
being us
sources,
streams
03826
/987,042
t’s Figure
ure shows
invention
pellant an
posite of t
at is referr
es that “ea
arallel as
secondar
el” as used
e agree wit
ed of Exa
xample, th
nse, the ex
ed by Park
however,
are not pro
5
side-by-s
(Appellan
(Parker
d Parker p
ertiary con
ed to by th
ch frame
a portion
y content
in claim
h the Exam
miner erro
e Examine
aminer do
er (Fig. 1,
the examin
vided and
9
P
ide resultin
t’s Figure
’s Figure 2
roduce the
tent. We
e word “p
of the plur
of a single
stream” (e
1 as demon
iner’s int
r by Appe
r finds an
es not den
element 3
er does re
or present
arker’s Fi
g video d
5) and the
A).
same type
find that it
arallel.” T
ality of ter
frame of
mphases a
strated by
erpretation
llant’s line
d reasons
y the fact t
0) to comb
spectfully
ed in para
gure 2A
isplays acc
Parker re
of video
is this com
he claim l
tiary cont
a motion p
dded). Pa
the comp
of “paral
of argum
that:
hat a mult
ine the in
disagree t
llel. Both
ording to
ference
frame
posite
anguage in
ent stream
icture
rker
arison
lel” and
ent to the
iplexer is
put video
hat the
Parker and

s

Appeal 2010-003826
Application 10/987,042

10
the Appellant show multiple content streams (Parker; Fig. 1, elements
20A-20D and Appellant; Fig. 3, elements 106.1-106.N) being sent to a
combiner/multiplexer (Parker; Fig. 1, element 30 and Appellant; Fig.
3, element 108). The combiner/multiplexer then outputs a single
composite signal (Parker; page 1, paragraph 6, and Appellant; Fig. 3,
element 104, and compositor, i.e. creates a composite signal; page 17,
paragraph 40). Furthermore, on page 2, paragraph 26 of Parker, it is
disclosed that the composite video signal from the multiplexer
provides simultaneous views of the input channels. Parker also
discloses, on page 2, paragraph 29, that the multiplexer may be any
commercially available multiplexer that can output a gridded
composite video. If the output from the multiplexer were in serial form
(as indicated by Appellant), that would indicate that
hardware/software at the end receiving device would need to be used
to demultiplex the signal and then create the gridded, i.e. mosaic
signal. What Parker is actually disclosing however, is a multiplexer
that is capable of creating a composite signal that is already in
gridded, i.e. mosaic form, before being sent to the encoder and
subsequently to the end receiving devices. This indication, along with
the fact that a multiplexer can use Frequency Division Multiplexing
[FDM], i.e. dividing a signal channel into two or more subchannels by
splitting the frequency band into narrower bands (McGraw-Hill
Electronics Dictionary, 6th ed., 1997 at page 303) shows that a
multiplexer can in fact output multiple inputs in a parallel type
manner.
Therefore, the Parker reference does support providing the content
streams in parallel.
(Ans. 26-27). Based on our review of the record, we agree with and adopt
the Examiner’s above identified findings. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-7, 9, 10, and 12,
not separately argued.
For the same reasons as set forth above, we also sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 13, 29, 39, 51, 52, 53, and 54
Appeal 2010-003826
Application 10/987,042

11
along with their respective dependent claims 14-21, 23, 24, 26-28, 30-35, 37,
40-44, and 46-50 that were not separately argued.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER ELDERING, CERRATO,
PARKER, AND GORDON
With regard to dependent claims 8, 11, 22, 25, 36, 38, and 45,
Appellant relied solely upon the asserted allowability of their respective
independent claims and does not contest the teachings of Gordon as stated
by the Examiner. Br. 29. Based on our analysis above with respect to the
independent claims, we sustain this rejection as well.

CONCLUSION(S)
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-54 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-54 is affirmed.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

babc