Ex Parte Bolduc et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 18, 2012

09928598 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 18, 2012)

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.
09/928,598 08/13/2001 Marc Bolduc G&C 30566.197-US-01 7530
55895 7590 06/18/2012
GATES & COOPER LLP - Autodesk
HOWARD HUGHES CENTER
6701 CENTER DRIVE WEST, SUITE 1050
LOS ANGELES, CA 90045
EXAMINER
EL CHANTI, HUSSEIN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/18/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MARC BOLDUC and STEPHANE DUCHESNE
____________

Appeal 2009-010956
Application 09/928,598
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, KRISTEN L. DROESCH,
and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-010956
Application 09/928,598

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-30, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to an apparatus for viewing image data
which displays selected frames transmitted from a frame source over a
network at their due time by skipping frames in the frame sequence based on
the data transfer rate of the network (see Spec. ¶ [0011]).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. Apparatus for viewing image data, comprising:
(a) display means;
(b) network connecting means for transferring frames of said
image data over a network from a remotely connected flame source,
wherein:
(i) said image data comprises a plurality of image frames
and has a frame rate from which may be inferred a correct time
for display of each frame in a sequence of frames in said image
data;
(ii) said frame source returns a frame in response to a
frame request issued over said network; and
(c) processing means configured to play a clip by:
(i) displaying selected frames from said frame source, on
said display means, at their correct time based on the frame rate
in order to maintain timing integrity of the clip by skipping
frames in said frame sequence in response to an indication of
the data transfer rate of said network, so that a loss of network
bandwidth availability results in a degradation in smoothness of
Appeal 2009-010956
Application 09/928,598

3
the clip, not a modification of the rate at which recorded events
in the clip unfold.
Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Chui (US 5,600,373).
Appellants’ Contentions
Claims 1, 8, 11, 18, 21, and 28
Appellants contend that Chui does not support a finding of
anticipation because the cited portions of the reference do not disclose all the
elements of independent claims 1, 8, 11, 18, 21, and 28 (App. Br. 8-9).1
Appellants specifically assert that the cited portions in columns 28 and 29 of
Chui merely disclose skipping to a next frame in the sequence based on the
capacity of the decompressor, rather than the claimed skipping frames on the
basis of network bandwidth availability (App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 8).
Additionally, Appellants contend that Chui does not teach or suggest
selecting a next frame for preloading by skipping at least one frame in the
clip’s frame sequence, as recited in claims 8, 18, and 28 (App. Br. 11; Reply
Br. 8-9).
Appellants indicate that claims 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23,
25, 26, 29, and 30 stand or fall with claim 1 (App. Br. 12-14).
Claims 2, 12, and 22
Appellants argue that the cited portion in column 29, lines 57-62, of
Chui “describes a field in the frame that indicates the address of the previous
frame in the sequence, in order to allow frames to be skipped in sequence”
rather than the claimed “comparison of the relative position of an input and

1 We refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed December 17, 2007.
Appeal 2009-010956
Application 09/928,598

4
an output pointer in a queue of frames to provide an indication of the data
transfer rate” (App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 9-10).
Claims 4, 14, and 24
Appellants present arguments similar to those raised for claim
2, and further contend that Chui does not teach or suggest “that the
frames are skipped in response to a prediction of a network data
transfer rate” (App. Br. 12).
Claims 7, 17, and 27
Appellants contend that the cited portion in column 27, lines 52-67, of
Chui “describes when real-time decompression is performed” rather than the
claimed frame selection “for display by processing its due time with elapsed
real time since playback started” (App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 11).

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims as anticipated by Chui
because the reference fails to disclose all the recited features of claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. 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 Answer in response to Appellants’
Appeal Brief (see Ans. 7-13). However, we highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appeal 2009-010956
Application 09/928,598

5
Claims 1, 8, 11, 18, 21, and 28
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 8, citing col. 1, ll. 38-48) that Chui
discusses overcoming the problems of conventional decompression
techniques for data transmission due to bandwidth limitations that prevent
transmitting conventional motion pictures in real time. As further pointed
out by the Examiner (Ans. 8-9), Chui in column 29, lines 52-56, discloses
skipping to a next frame in the sequence in order to display the motion
picture in real time and more accurately convey the time-dependence of the
picture. Therefore, Chui discloses skipping frames on the basis of the
decompressor capacity as well as network bandwidth availability recited in
claim 1.
With respect to selecting a next frame for preloading by skipping at
least one frame in the clip’s frame sequence, as recited in claims 8, 18, and
28, we also agree with the Examiner (Ans. 11) that the cited portions in
columns 28 and 29 of Chui disclose selecting the next frame in the frame
sequence. Chui specifically provides different fields, such as field 75, which
contains the address of the next frame in the sequence and allows rapid
skipping (col. 28, ll. 23-37; col. 29, ll. 45-51).
Claims 2, 12, and 22
Similarly, as stated by the Examiner (Ans. 11), the sequence of the
frames selected for display in Chui include address fields, or pointers, that
allow a user control interface to interactively control displaying the video
sequence and skipping the frames (col. 28, ll. 23-37, 44-60). Therefore, by
using the information in different fields, Chui provides for dynamically
determining the rate of compression or scaling of the time base recited in
claim 2 (see col. 29, ll. 57-67).
Appeal 2009-010956
Application 09/928,598

6
Claims 4, 14, and 24
As stated above with respect to claim 1, we agree with the
Examiner’s discussion of skipping frames in Chui based on the
network bandwidth as well as data decompression rate (see Ans. 12).
Claims 7, 17, and 27
We again agree with the Examiner (Ans. 12) that Chui in column 30,
lines 20-27, discloses the claimed frame selection because the data flow
interface 80 provides the incoming bitstream data which are placed in an
interface flow before being decompressed.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that, because Chui teaches all
the claim limitations, the Examiner has not erred in rejecting the claims as
being anticipated by Chui. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 27, and 28, and
of claims 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26, 29, and 30 falling
together therewith.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-30 is 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)(v).

AFFIRMED

ke