Ex Parte Bhattacharya

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2016

12750020 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016)

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.
12/750,020 03/30/2010 Shubham Baidyanath BHATTACHARYA 678-3913 (P16971) 8099
66547 7590 09/27/2016
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
CHOWDHURY, NIGAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2016 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 SHUBHAM BAIDYANATH
___________

Appeal 2015-002935
Application 12/750,020
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant is appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1–9 under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to a method and an apparatus for reverse
playback of encoded multimedia content. Specification 1.

Appeal 2015-002935
Application 12/750,020

2
Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method for reverse playback of encoded
multimedia content, the method comprising:
receiving a request for the reverse playback of the encoded
multimedia content from a user or an electronic device;
identifying a first Intra frame (I-frame) preceding a last
played frame at an instant of receiving the request from a first
Group Of Pictures (GOP) constituting a portion of the encoded
multimedia content;
decoding first successive frames in the first GOP starting
from the first I-frame;
storing the first decoded frames in a memory; and
playing the first decoded frames in a frame sequence
effecting the reverse playback,
wherein the memory comprises a circular buffer queue
which includes memory slots for storing the first decoded frames,
and the first decoded frames are sequentially stored in the
memory slots such that a last frame of the first decoded frames
is stored in a last memory slot of the memory slots, and
wherein the first decoded frames are displayed from the
last frame stored in the last memory slot to a first frame of the
first decoded frames stored in a corresponding memory slot of
the memory slots.

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1–3, 5 and 7–9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Stenzel (US Patent Application Publication Number
2003/0103566 A1; published June 5, 2003) and Walker (US Patent Number
7,817,900 B2; issued October 19, 2010). Final Rejection 5–12.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stenzel, Walker and Duruoz (US Patent Application
Appeal 2015-002935
Application 12/750,020

3
Publication Number 2004/0076236 A1; published April 22, 2004). Final
Rejection 12–13.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stenzel, Walker and Miyamoto (US Patent Application
Publication Number 2002/0061184 A1; published May 23, 2002). Final
Rejection 13–14.

ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed October 20, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed
January 20, 2015), the Answer (mailed November 18, 2014) and the Final
Rejection (mailed May 20, 2014) for the respective details. We have
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in
the Briefs.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief, except where
noted.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s obviousness rejection based upon the
combination of Stenzel and Walker is erroneous because Walker fails to
address Stenzel’s deficiencies as noted by the Examiner. Appeal Brief 4–5;
Final Rejection 8–9. The Examiner finds:
Stenzel fails to disclose wherein the memory comprises a
circular buffer queue which includes memory slots for storing the
first decoded frames, and the first decoded frames are
Appeal 2015-002935
Application 12/750,020

4
sequentially stored in the memory slots such that a last frame of
the first decoded frames is stored in a last memory slot of the
memory slots, and
wherein the first decoded frames are displayed from the
last frame stored in the last memory slot to a first frame of the
first decoded frames stored in a corresponding memory slot of
the memory slots.
Final Rejection 8.
The Examiner relies upon Walker’s claim 1 to address Stenzel’s
deficiency and further finds:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to incorporate the ability to use
buffer queue for storing, decoding and displaying, as taught by
Walker into the system of Stenzel, because such incorporation
allows smooth playback of video in reverse timeline thus
increasing user accessibility of the system.
Final Rejection 9.

The Examiner further finds that neither Stenzel nor Walker discloses a
circular buffer and takes Office Notice because “the use of a circular buffer
is old and well-known in the recording art.” Final Rejection 9.
Appellant argues, “Walker at most discloses removing frames from a
queue in the order from the last memory slot to the first, but fails to disclose
displaying frames from the last memory slot to the first.” Appeal Brief 5.
Appellant further argues based upon Walker’s claim 1:

Appeal 2015-002935
Application 12/750,020

5
[S]ince the frames were first placed in the render-ahead queue in
their reverse order, to achieve “displaying the frames in reverse
order to a screen,” the frames are necessarily displayed from the
first slot of the render-ahead queue to the last slot-only in this
way can the reverse playback be achieved. To display the frames
from the render-ahead queue from the last slot to the first, as the
Examiner contends, would simply display the frames in their
original forward order.
Appeal Brief 5.
Appellant contends Walker’s claim 1 limitation – “displaying the
queued video frames from the render-ahead queue to a screen in the reverse
order” recites “the reverse order” and not “a reverse order.” Appeal Brief 5.
Appellant contends “the reverse order recited in the displaying limitation,
simply refers to the order in which the frames were removed from the
secondary queue as recited in the removing limitation.” Appeal Brief 5.
Appellant concludes, “To display the frames from the render-ahead queue
from the last slot to the first, as the Examiner contends, would simply
display the frames in their original forward order.” Appeal Brief 5.
“As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek
out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Therefore, we do not find Appellant’s
interpretation of Walker’s claim 1 persuasive and consequently we do not
find Appellant’s argument persuasive because Appellant’s interpretation
contradicts Walker’s teaching of a “computer-implemented method for
displaying a plurality of video frames in a reverse order relative to a forward
order.”

Appeal 2015-002935
Application 12/750,020

6
We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1, as well
as, claims 2–9 not separately argued.

DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1– 9 are 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)(v).

AFFIRMED