10087002 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 31, 2010)

Ex Parte Blair et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 31, 2010

10087002 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 31, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte RONALD LYNN BLAIR, MARK ALAN SCHULTZ and ROBERT WARREN SCHMIDT ____________ Appeal 2009-001208 Application 10/087,002 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Decided: March 31, 2010 ____________ Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, and MAHSHID D. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges. HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134 from the final rejection of claims 1 to 18. The disclosed invention relates to a method and apparatus for audio content playback during video trick mode playback. During the playback, Appeal 2009-001208 Application 10/087,002 2 selected ones of digital audio samples are repeated or dropped at a rate corresponding to a selected trick mode video playback speed of the video programming, and a playback audio pitch associated with the audio samples is key shifted to compensate for the trick mode playback (Figs 1-3; Spec. 2- 7). Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and it reads as follows: 1. A method for audio content playback during video trick mode playback, comprising: reading coded digital data from a storage medium, said coded digital data comprising a video programming and corresponding audio programming; decoding from a portion of said digital data comprising said audio programming a plurality of digital audio samples corresponding to a selected portion of the video programming; repeating or dropping selected ones of said digital audio samples at a rate corresponding to a selected trick mode video playback speed of said video programming; and key shifting a playback audio pitch associated with said audio samples to compensate for said trick mode playback. The prior art1 relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Shimura US 6,658,197 B1 Dec. 2, 2003 1 The filing dates of the applied references are prior to the March 1, 2002 filing date of the subject application. Appeal 2009-001208 Application 10/087,002 3 Suito US 6,925,340 B1 Aug. 2, 2005 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 8 to 11, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based upon the teachings of Suito. The Examiner rejected claims 3 to 7 and 12 to 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Suito and Shimura. The Examiner contends (Final Rej. 4, 5) that Suito describes all of the method steps and apparatus limitations set forth in claims 1, 2, 8 to 11, 17, and 18. In response, Appellants argue inter alia (Br. 19-21, and 24) that Suito does not describe “key shifting a playback audio pitch associated with said audio samples to compensate for said trick mode playback.” Suito describes an apparatus and method for audio content playback during video trick playback that involves either double speed reproduction or triple speed reproduction (col. 6, ll. 14-50). Suito reads coded digital data comprising video programming and corresponding audio programming from a storage medium 1 (Fig. 1; col. 6, ll. 3-9). Suito then decodes a plurality of digital audio samples corresponding to a selected portion of the video programming (col. 6, ll. 30-36). In amplitude processing section 70, 76, Suito deletes all of the sound absence portions from the audio, and joins together the sound presence portions of the audio that occur both before and after the sound absence portions of the audio to form an audio output signal (col. 1, l. 58 to col. 2, l. 10; col. 17, ll. 31 to 63; col. 22, ll. 25 to 28; Abstract). Although we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7) that the output from filter 73 in Suito has a pitch component that is received by amplitude processing section 70, 76 (Fig. 3; col. 7, ll. 31 to 36), we agree with Appeal 2009-001208 Application 10/087,002 4 Appellants’ argument that Suito does not shift “playback audio pitch associated with said audio samples to compensate for said trick mode playback.” In summary, the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 8 to 11, 17, and 18 is reversed because each and every limitation in the claims is not found either expressly or inherently in Suito. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The obviousness rejection of claims 3 to 7 and 12 to 16 is reversed because the audio signal reproduction teachings of Shimura fail to cure the noted shortcomings in the teachings of Suito. The decision of the Examiner is reversed. REVERSED KIS JOSEPH S. TRIPOLI THOMSON MULTIMEDIA LICENSING, INC. 2 INDEPENDENCE WAY P. O. BOX 5312 PRINCETON, NJ 08543-5312