Ex Parte Amon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 12, 2016

13143628 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/143,628 07/07/2011
88087 7590 08/16/2016
Fritzsche Patent
c/o Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC (SEN)
P. 0. Box 1404
Alexandria, VA 22313-1404
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Peter Amon
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.
201 OP00042WOUS 7450
EXAMINER
ZHOU, ZHIHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2016 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):
ADIPDOC 1@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER AMON, NORBERT OERTEL, and
BERNHARD AGTHE 1
Appeal2014-009123
Application 13/143,628
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-20. App. Br. 12-13. An oral hearing was held
August 4, 2016. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Unify GmbH & Co. KG, formerly known as Siemens
Enterprise Communications GmbH & Co. KG, as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-009123
Application 13/143,628
Invention
Appellants' invention relates to the use of a synchronization signal as
part of an encoding method for the generation of a temporal sequence of
pictures. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
illustrative:
1. A method for mixing at least two video streams comprising:
generating a first video stream by a first end point, the
first video stream comprising a first temporal sequence of
frames;
generating a second video stream by a second end point,
the second video stream comprising a second temporal
sequence of frames;
the first end point sending the first temporal sequence of
frames to a mixing device;
the second end noint sendirn.! the second temnoral
~ ~ ~
sequence of frames to the mixing device;
the mixing device deriving a synchronization signal from
at least one of: the first temporal sequence of frames, the
second temporal sequence of frames, and a timing signal;
the mixing device sending the synchronization signal to
at least one of the first end point and the second end point so
that subsequent frames of the first temporal sequence and
subsequent frames of the second temporal sequence sent to the
mixmg device are synchronized with each other via
synchronized encoding of the first and second subsequent
frames by encoders of the first and second end points;
at least one of the first end point and second end point
receiving the synchronization signal;
at least one of the first end point and the second end
point, in response to the received synchronization signal,
2
Appeal2014-009123
Application 13/143,628
adjusting encoding of the frames of the first video stream and
the frames of the second video stream such that subsequent
frames of the first temporal sequence sent to the mixing device
and subsequent frames of the second temporal sequence sent to
the mixing device are synchronized with each other to have a
same predictive structure based on the received synchronization
signal;
the mixing device receiving the subsequent frames of the
first temporal sequence and the subsequent frames of the
second temporal sequence after having sent the synchronization
signal and mixes the received subsequent frames of the first
temporal sequence with the received subsequent frames of the
second temporal sequence to generate a mixed video stream.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1-5, 7-13, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cooper (US 2006/0018379 Al; Jan. 26,
2006) and Amon2 (WO 2009/049974 A2; Apr. 23, 2009). Final Act. 2-11.
The Examiner rejects claims 6, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cooper, 1A..mon, and Labrozzi (US 2011/0235703
Al; Sept. 29, 2011). Final Act. 12-13.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Cooper and Amon
teaches or suggests "the mixing device deriving a synchronization signal ...
[and] the mixing device sending the synchronization signal to at least one of
the first end point and the second end point," as recited in claim 1?
2 The Examiner relies on Amon (US 2010/0254458 Al; Oct. 7, 2010) as a
certified translation of Amon '974. Final Act. 2. All citations to Amon in
the Examiner's rejection, and herein, refer to the '458 published patent
application.
3
Appeal2014-009123
Application I3/143,628
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim I, the Examiner finds Cooper's frame clock teaches
or suggests a "the broadcast video transmission device deriving a
synchronization signal from at least one of: the first temporal sequence of
frames, the second temporal sequence of frames, and a timing signal" and
"the broadcast video transmission device sending the synchronization signal
to at least one of the first end point and the second end point." Final Act. 3
(citing Cooper Fig. I, i-fi-120, 46, and 48). The Examiner relies on Amon's
mixing of video streams VI I and VI2 into a single coded output video
stream V2 to teach or suggest the broadcast video transmission device being
a mixing device. Final Act. 4 (citing Amon i-fi-157-58).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because modifying Cooper's
multiplexer using Amon to form a mixed video signal fails to teach or
suggest "a mixing device deriving a synchronization signal from encoded
data received from such end points or a timing signal." App. Br. 23; see
also Reply Br. 2-3. We find Appellants' arguments persuasive.
The Examiner correctly finds that Cooper's multiplexer receives
group of picture sequences from video encoders I and 2. Ans. 3 (citing
Cooper Fig. I, i-fi-f I2, 20). The Examiner also correctly finds that Cooper's
frame clock represents a timing signal. Ans. 3 (citing Cooper Fig. I, i120).
However, the Examiner's findings do not show that Cooper teaches or
suggests its multiplexer (a mixing device if modified by Amon) deriving a
synchronization signal from the frame clock or another timing signal. Nor
do the Examiner's findings show that Cooper teaches or suggests having its
multiplexer send a synchronization signal to at least one of the video
4
Appeal2014-009123
Application 13/143,628
encoders. Cooper's Figure 1, reproduced below, illustrates this
shortcoming:
VIDEO
CH 1
VIDEO
CH2
VIDEO
CH3
VfDEO
CHN
FRAME VIDEO
~ ......__. SYNC ... ENCODER 1 .. ,,.. r 101 103 - -
FRAME VIDEO
--.... SYNC ... ENCODER2 .. ... r
101 103 MUX -- 107 -
FRAME VIDEO _...., SYNC "'- ENGODEA3 .. r "
101 103 -
FRAME VIDEO
----.. SYNC ... ENCODERN ~v, ,_
101 103 -
l\IH IV
L, '""""'' .... ) ~ CONTROL
COMPLEXITY
Bff (1:N]
ALLOCATION
[1:N] ., ,.
r STATMUX "'I\
FRAME CLOCK ,,_ CONTROLLER -
r 105
'- - ...
STATIC CHANNEL ,i"'
CHARACTERISTICS
...
r
MODULATOR
!Qi
Cooper's Figure 1 illustrates a block diagram of a broadcast video
transmission system in which video encoders 1-N send data to multiplexer
107, which in tum sends data to modulator 109. This figure further
illustrates a frame clock that provides a signal to video encoders 1-N and to
5
Appeal2014-009123
Application 13/143,628
stat nmx controller 105. However, the frame clock is not depicted as coming
from multiplexer 107 (i.e., multiplexer 107 sending the frame clock or
synchronization signal).
The Examiner's findings do not show that Amon cures the noted
deficiency of Cooper. Therefore, the Examiner's findings do not show the
combination of Cooper and Amon teaches or suggests "the mixing device
deriving a synchronization signal ... [and] the mixing device sending the
synchronization signal to at least one of the first end point and the second
end point," as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-5, 7-13, and 16-20, which have similar
recitations and are similarly rejected. The Examiner's findings also do not
show Labrozzi cures the noted deficiency of Cooper and Amon. Therefore,
we also cannot sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of
claims 6, 14, and 15.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
REVERSED
6