Valens Semiconductor Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 9, 2020

14834702 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2020)

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.
14/834,702 08/25/2015 Eyran Lida Va_DRTC5 9920
16759 7590 09/09/2020
Active Knowledge Ltd.
P.O. Box 294
Kiryat Tivon, 36011
ISRAEL
EXAMINER
DOBBS, KRISTIN SENSMEIER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/09/2020 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):
ari@activekn.com
gil@activekn.com
tal@activekn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte EYRAN LIDA
____________

Appeal 2019-003029
Application 14/834,702
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–24, which are all the claims pending
in this application. We have jurisdiction 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) (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Valens Semiconductor Ltd. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003029
Application 14/834,702

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to methods and network
configurations for “smooth switching of video sources that share a common
link.” See Spec. ¶¶ 4, 6. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as
follows:
1. A network configured to support smooth switching
of video sources, comprising:
a first real-time video encoder (RT-VE) configured to
receive a first incoming high-definition uncompressed video
(HD-UV), compress the first incoming HD-UV into a first
compressed video using a first compression ratio of up to 5:1,
and send the first compressed video over a first network path to
a first real-time video decoder (RT-VD) configured to extract a
first outgoing HD-UV from the first compressed video;
a second RT-VE configured to receive a second
incoming HD-UV, compress the second incoming HD-UV into
a second compressed video using a second compression ratio of
up to 5:1, and send the second compressed video over a second
network path to a second RT-VD configured to extract a second
outgoing HD-UV from the second compressed video;
wherein the first and second network paths share a
common link having insufficient bandwidth to carry both the
first and second compressed videos; and
a video switching controller configured to synchronize a
smooth switching between the first and second incoming HD-
UV s by: indicating the first RT-VE and the second RT-VE to
increase the first and second compression ratios to ratios that
enable the common link to carry both the first and second
compressed videos, indicating a video switcher to perform a
smooth switching between the first and second outgoing HD-
UVs, indicating the first RT-VE to stop sending the first
compressed video after the smooth switching, and indicating the
second RT-VE to decrease the second compression ratio.
Appeal 2019-003029
Application 14/834,702

3
See Appeal Br. 25–26 (Claims App.).
The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schlack (US 2010/0299552 A1; pub. Nov. 25, 2010) and
Ramasubramanian (US 6,172,672 B1; iss. Jan. 9, 2001). Final Act. 3–14.

ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Schlack discloses the recited
network configuration including the first and second encoders sending first
and second compressed video over first and second paths, which share a
common link with insufficient bandwidth to accommodate both compressed
video streams, and the recited video switching controller. Final Act. 3–4
(citing Schlack Figs. 1–6; ¶¶ 31–40, 52, 29–62 (multiple streams)). The
Examiner relies on Ramasubramanian as disclosing “compress the first
incoming HD-UV into a first compressed video using a first compression
ratio of up to 5:1” and “compress the second incoming HD-UV into a second
compressed video using a second compression ratio of up to 5:1.” Final Act.
4–5 (citing Ramasubramanian Figs. 2A, 2B, 2C; col. 7, line 28–col. 8, line
11) (emphasis omitted). Finally, the Examiner finds the combination would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because
“Ramasubramanian teaches a solution to deal with the issue of network
congestion, prevent delay in viewing and loss of video quality (See, for
example, Ramasubramanian, paragraphs [0005]-[0006]).” Final Act. 6.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in characterizing the streaming
of Schlack as high-definition uncompressed video streams because the
disclosed streaming server 140 merely receives video streams at different bit
Appeal 2019-003029
Application 14/834,702

4
rates, but not any high-definition uncompressed video streams. Appeal Br.
9–10 (citing Schlack ¶¶ 7, 50, 60, 66, 69). Appellant argues Figure 1 of
Schlack does not show a video switcher that receives the recited two
uncompressed streams over a shared common link where a video switcher
switches between those two uncompressed streams when the shared link has
insufficient bandwidth. Appeal Br. 10, 12–16.
The Examiner responds by explaining that stream encoder 130 and
client 170 in Figure 1 of Schlack are characterized as the recited first real
time video-encoder that receives a high-definition uncompressed video.
Ans. 14. The Examiner further refers to Schlack’s Figure 5 as showing
multiple streams and explains:
Figs. 4-6 and paragraphs [0029]-[0062] (for example, paragraphs
[0057]-[0058]) of Schlack teach a stream server 140 that
switches video source files/streams, and that it may take several
HTTP GET requests/video data responses (625) before the
Streaming Server 140 can move to the next video segment (630)
(which is the opportunity to seamlessly switch to the lower bit
rate video source).
Ans. 16.
Schlack applies adaptive bit rate adjustment to content sessions to
modify bandwidth usage within the network. See Schlack Abstract.
Contrary to the Examiner’s characterization of encoder 130 and client 170 as
the recited first real time video-encoder, the description of Schlack’s Figures
1 and 5 discloses that stream encoder 130 encodes video stream 132 at
different bit rates, which is sent to streaming server 140 for delivering to
client 170 at an adaptive bit rate 145. See Schlack ¶¶ 31–33. Similarly, the
description of Schlack’s Figure 5 discloses bandwidth reclamation which
allocates bandwidth to different streams sent to different clients at different
Appeal 2019-003029
Application 14/834,702

5
bit rate by applying adaptive bandwidth adjustment techniques according to
the required bandwidth usage. See Schlack ¶¶ 50–53. Therefore, as further
asserted by Appellant, “Schlack’s adaptive bandwidth changes the data rate
according to the network constraints while transmitting video streams to
different clients” rather than the recited switching between the first and
second incoming high-definition uncompressed video HD-UV streams.
Reply Br. 2 (emphasis omitted).
Conclusion
For the above reasons, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s
proposed combination does not teach or suggest the recited features of claim
1. Therefore, Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s position with respect to the rejections of independent claim 1,
independent claim 18 which recite similar limitations, as well as the
remaining claims dependent therefrom. See Appeal Br. 25–31 (Claims
App.).

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–24 103 Schlack,
Ramasubramanian
1–24
Overall Outcome 1–24

REVERSED