Ex Parte Budagavi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 11, 2011

09896386 (B.P.A.I. May. 11, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MADHUKAR BUDAGAVI
____________________

Appeal 2009-010178
Application 09/896,386
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MARC S. HOFF and BRADLEY W.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-010178
Application 09/896,386

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1 through 3 and 5. Dependent claim 4 has been is objected to, and
the Examiner has identified that it contains allowable subject matter.
We affirm.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a video encoding system. See pages 1 and
2 of Appellant’s Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the invention
and reproduced below:

1. A method for motion compensation video, comprising:
(a) assessing parameters of a packetized transmission channel:
(b) assessing sizes of intra-coded frames and predictively-coded
frames for an input video;
(c) setting the rate of intra-coded frames and the rate of
predictively-coded frames by maximizing a probability of correct
frame reconstruction using the results of steps (a) and (b), wherein
said probability of correct frame reconstruction includes a rate of
repeated transmission of predictively-coded frames.

REFERENCES

Rhee US 6,421,387 B1 Jul. 16, 2002

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Rhee. Answer 3.
Appeal 2009-010178
Application 09/896,386

3
ISSUE
Appellant’s contentions on page 4 of the Appeal Brief1 present us
with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding that Rhee teaches adjusting
the video coding?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiners’ anticipation rejection in light of
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusion. 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. We concur
with the Examiner’s conclusions.
Particularly, we do not find that Appellant’s argument, on page 4 of
the Brief, directed to Rhee not teaching adjusting the video coding, is
commensurate in scope with claims 1 and 5. As noted by the Examiner,
independent claims 1 and 5 do not recite adjusting the video coding.
Answer 3.2 Accordingly, we do not find error in the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claims 1 through 3 and 5.

1 Throughout this decision we refer to the Appeal Brief dated July 16, 2007.
2 Throughout this decision we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed
October 16, 2007.
Appeal 2009-010178
Application 09/896,386

4
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claim claims 1 through 3 and 5 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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD