Intel Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2021

2020005283 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2021)

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.
15/063,082 03/07/2016 Karthik Veeramani P93514 2806
75343 7590 12/02/2021
Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC (Intel)
150 S. Wacker Dr. Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
LEE, PHILIP C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2021 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):
docketing@hfzlaw.com
jflight@hfzlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KARTHIK VEERAMANI, ASHISH SINGHI,
RAJNEESH CHOWDHURY, and BRIAN E. ROGERS
_____________

Appeal 2020-005283
Application 15/063,082
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–8, 11–16, 19, 21, 23, and 26–33, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. Appeal Br. 1. Claims 9, 10, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24
and 25 are canceled. See Amendment, filed November 10, 2019. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, the real party in interest is
Intel Corporation. See Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-005283
Application 15/063,082

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2
Introduction
Embodiments of Appellant’s claimed subject matter relate generally
to providing hints usable to adjust one or more properties of digital media,
by a destination computing device communicatively coupled to multiple
source computing devices over wireless communication channels. See Spec.
¶ 13.
Illustrative Claim 1
1. A destination computing device for providing hints usable to
adjust properties of digital media, the destination computing
device comprising:

a digital media stream processing module to process a
plurality of digital media streams based on a plurality of digital
media properties, wherein each of the digital media streams is
received from a different one of a plurality of source computing
devices wirelessly coupled to the destination computing device;

a digital media output module to output one or more of the
processed digital media streams to an output device of the
destination computing device based on one or more output
settings;

a performance metric determination module to (i) analyze
the processing and output of the digital media streams and (ii)
determine one or more performance metrics based on the
analysis, wherein the one or more performance metrics indicate
an actual performance level; and

2 We herein refer to the Final Office Action, mailed August 29, 2019 (“Final
Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed March 17, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the
Examiner’s Answer, mailed May 8, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.”), filed July 8, 2020.
Appeal 2020-005283
Application 15/063,082

3
a hint determination module to (i) analyze the one or more
performance metrics, (ii) determine whether a hint is to be sent
to one or more of the plurality of source computing devices
based on the analysis of the one or more performance metrics,
wherein the hint identifies information usable by a source
computing device of the plurality of source computing devices
to determine whether to change one or more of the plurality of
digital media properties associated with a digital media stream
of that source computing device, (iii) generate, in response to a
determination that the hint is to be sent, a message that includes
the hint, and (iv) transmit the message to a corresponding one
or more of the source computing devices.

Appeal Br. 17. Claims App. (emphasis added regarding disputed dispositive
limitation).
Prior Art Evidence Relied Upon by the Examiner
Name Reference Date
Krikorian et al. (“Krikorian”) US 7,877,776 B2 Jan. 25, 2011
Huang et al. (“Huang”) US 2013/0195119 A1 Aug. 1, 2013
Chang et al. (“Chang”) US 2016/0286244 A1 Sep. 29, 2016

Rejections
Rejection Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
A 1–8, 11–16, 19,
21, 23, 30, 31, 33 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) Huang
B 26–29 103 Huang, Chang
C 32 103 Huang, Krikorian
Appeal 2020-005283
Application 15/063,082

4
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. 3 Based upon the record before us, we find a preponderance of
the evidence supports Appellant’s arguments for essentially the same
reasons as articulated in the Briefs. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis in our analysis below.
Rejection A of Independent Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, we focus our analysis on the argued claim 1
limitation: “wherein each of the digital media streams is received from a
different one of a plurality of source computing devices wirelessly coupled
to the destination computing device; . . . .”

Issue: Did the Examiner err by finding Huang expressly or inherently
discloses the disputed limitation:
wherein each of the digital media streams is received from a
different one of a plurality of source computing devices
wirelessly coupled to the destination computing device;
Claim 1 (emphasis added).
Regarding the disputed limitation, we note the Examiner provides
multiple citations in the Final Action without providing a clear mapping to
the individual claim terms.4 See Final Act. 6. In the Answer, the Examiner

3 Throughout this opinion we give the contested claim limitations the
broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the Specification.
See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
4 See the mapping rule: 37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c)(2) (“When a reference is
complex or shows or describes inventions other than that claimed by the
applicant, the particular part relied on must be designated as nearly as
Appeal 2020-005283
Application 15/063,082

5
concludes that, in light of the Specification, the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim term “computing device” is “a device that can be
incorporated as part of any type of computing device such as, without
limitation, a processor-based system, and/or any other computing/
communication device.” Ans. 4, citing Spec. ¶ 30. The Examiner finds
Huang’s separate video encoder 612 and audio encoder 616 (as shown in
Huang’s Fig. 6) are wirelessly coupled to the sink device via channel 150
(Fig. 1) which discloses “a different one of a plurality of source computing
devices wirelessly coupled to the destination computing device.” Id.
(emphasis added).
Appellant contends that neither Huang’s video encoder 612 nor audio
encoder 616 are devices that are wirelessly coupled to the sink device 160.
See Appeal Br. 8. Instead, Appellant urges that “the ‘video encoder 612’
and ‘audio encoder 616’ are integrated into a single ‘source device 120,’ and
it is the ‘source device 120’ as a whole that is wirelessly coupled to the ‘sink
device 160,’ not the individual components of the source device 120.”
Appeal Br. 8. Therefore, Appellant contends that Huang does not disclose a
plurality of different source computing devices that are each wirelessly
connected to a destination computing device, as required by the language of
claim 1. See Id.
A determination that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
involves two analytical steps. First, we must interpret the claim language,
where necessary. Because the PTO is entitled to give claims their broadest
reasonable interpretation, a court’s review of the Board’s claim construction

practicable. The pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must be
clearly explained and each rejected claim specified.” (emphasis added).
Appeal 2020-005283
Application 15/063,082

6
is limited to determining whether it was reasonable. Morris, 127 F.3d at
1055. Secondly, the Board must compare the properly construed claim to a
prior art reference and make factual findings that “each and every limitation
is found either expressly or inherently in [that] single prior art reference.”
In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Anticipation of a patent
claim requires a finding that the claim at issue “reads on” a prior art
reference. See Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed
Cir. 1999).
As applicable to “computing device” claim 1 before us on appeal,
“[a]nticipation requires the presence in a single prior art reference disclosure
of each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as in the
claim.” Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co.,
730 F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
We begin our analysis by noting that Appellant specifically argues the
limitation “wherein each of the digital media streams is received from a
different one of a plurality of source computing devices wirelessly coupled
to the destination computing device” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7–8.
Appellant contends: “Huang does not teach a plurality of different source
computing devices that are each wireless connected to a destination
computing device. Huang, then, fails to disclose ‘all of the limitations
arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim’ and,
therefore, does not anticipate claim 1.” Appeal Br. 8 (citing in support Net
MoneyIN Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
We do not see a finding by the Examiner in Huang that discloses a
plurality of source computing devices, arranged as claimed. The sole
source device the Examiner cites to is Huang’s source device 120 (Figure 1).
Appeal 2020-005283
Application 15/063,082

7
We note that claim 1 requires “a plurality of source computing devices
wirelessly coupled to the destination computing device.”
When a claim requires two separate elements, one element construed
as having two separate functions will not suffice to meet the terms of the
claim. See Lantech Inc. v. Keip Machine Co., 32 F.3d 542, 547 (Fed. Cir.
1994); All limitations in a claim must be considered meaningful. See
Perkin- Elmer Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 822 F.2d 1528, 1532
(Fed. Cir. 1987).
On this record, we find the Examiner has not established that Huang
discloses all the elements of the disputed claim language, “wherein each of
the digital media streams is received from a different one of a plurality of
source computing devices wirelessly coupled to the destination computing
device,” arranged as claimed. Claim 1 (emphasis added).
We do not find any express or inherent description in Huang
regarding a plurality of source computing devices wirelessly coupled to a
destination computing device that satisfies the rigorous requirements of
anticipation. In this regard, the Examiner has not fully developed the record
by providing objective evidence to support the Examiner’s finding of
anticipation. Therefore, based upon our review of the record, we find a
preponderance of the evidence supports Appellant’s arguments. See Appeal
Br. 7–8.
Accordingly, for essentially the same reasons argued in the Briefs, as
discussed above, we find a preponderance of the evidence supports
Appellant’s contentions that Huang’s source device (Figure 1) does not
anticipate the claim 1 requirement: “wherein each of the digital media
streams is received from a different one of a plurality of source computing
Appeal 2020-005283
Application 15/063,082

8
devices wirelessly coupled to the destination computing device.” (emphasis
added).
Because Appellant has persuaded us the Examiner erred, we are
constrained on this record to reverse the Examiner’s anticipation
Rejection A of independent claim 1. For the same reasons, we also reverse
Rejection A of remaining independent claims 11 and 19, which each recite
the disputed dispositive limitation of claim 1 using similar language of
commensurate scope. For the same reasons, we also reverse associated
dependent claims 2–8, 12–16, 21, 23, 30, 31, and 33, which were also
rejected under Rejection A.

Rejections B and C under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Likewise, we reverse obviousness Rejection B of dependent claims
26–29 and obviousness Rejection C of dependent claim 32, because the
Examiner has not shown that the additionally cited secondary references
(Chang/Krikorian) overcome the aforementioned deficiencies of Huang.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–8, 11–16, 19, 21, 23, and
26–33 over the cited references.

Appeal 2020-005283
Application 15/063,082

9
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8,
11–16, 19,
21, 23, 30,
31, 33
102 Huang
1–8,
11–16, 19,
21, 23, 30,
31, 33
26–29 103 Huang, Chang 26–29
32 103 Huang, Krikorian 32
Overall
Outcome
1–8, 11–16,
19, 21, 23,
26–33

REVERSED