Ex Parte Banerji et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 28, 201310074765 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 10/074,765 02/12/2002 Ashish Banerji PD-201157 9961 20991 7590 06/28/2013 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION CA / LA1 / A109 2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245 EXAMINER VO, TUNG T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/28/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ASHISH BANERJI and KUMAR SWAMINATHAN ____________________ Appeal 2012-012635 Application 10/074,765 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appeal 2012-012635 Application 10/074,765 2 INTRODUCTION Appellants’ Request for Rehearing, filed May 3, 2013, contends that we erred in our Decision on Appeal entered March 20, 2013, in which we affirmed the rejection of claims 1-20 and 22-26. 1 OPINION We will maintain the rejection. ANALYSIS Appellants assert that the Board misapprehended or overlooked two points in its Decision. First, Appellants argue that the Board misapprehended the fact that the video data set that is being split into a plurality of homogeneous files comprises “video frames that are only between consecutive I-frames” (Req. for Reh’g 3; emphasis omitted). According to Appellants, one cannot determine whether Gonzales includes or does not include I-frames in the video data set to be split into a plurality of homogeneous files which are then individually compressed (Id.). Second, Appellants contend that the argument that the Examiner never explained why the macroblocks in Gonzales are considered to be homogeneous was presented for the first time prior to the Reply Brief, and thus is entitled to consideration (Req. for Reh’g 4). 1 Claim 21 has been cancelled. Appeal 2012-012635 Application 10/074,765 3 FIRST POINT OF ARGUMENT We do not agree with Appellants that one cannot determine from Gonzalez whether I-frames are or are not included in the video data set. Gonzales discloses that “[w]ithin a GOP, three types of pictures can appear. The distinguishing difference among the picture types is the compression method used. Intramode pictures or I-pictures are compressed independently of any other picture” (col. 3, ll. 35-38). It follows logically that if I-pictures (i.e., I-frames) are compressed independently of any other picture, I-pictures are not included in a video data set to be compressed that includes any other pictures. The reverse is also true: if I-pictures are to be compressed independently, video data sets to be compressed that include B-pictures and/or P-pictures would not include any I-pictures. We therefore maintain our finding that Gonzales teaches grouping video frames that are only between consecutive I-frames into a video data set. SECOND POINT OF ARGUMENT We do not agree with Appellants that the argument that the Examiner has not explained why the macroblocks in Gonzales are considered to be homogeneous was presented prior to the Reply Brief. We have reviewed Appellants’ Brief on Appeal, particularly pages 10 and 11 cited by Appellants (Req. for Reh’g 4), and we find that Appellants did not present argument challenging the Examiner’s interpretation of Gonzales’s macroblocks as homogeneous. We maintain our conclusion that the newly presented argument is not entitled to consideration. Appeal 2012-012635 Application 10/074,765 4 We therefore conclude that Appellants have not shown any points which we misapprehended or overlooked in our Decision. CONCLUSION In summary, we have granted Appellants’ request for rehearing to the extent that we have reconsidered our decision affirming the rejection of claims 1-20 and 22-26, but we decline to modify the decision in any way. REHEARING DENIED ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation