Ex Parte BudagaviDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 11, 201109896386 (B.P.A.I. May. 11, 2011) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation