Ex Parte Desmicht et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 16, 201613062898 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/062,898 05/06/2011 23446 7590 05/18/2016 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD 500 WEST MADISON STREET SUITE 3400 CHICAGO, IL 60661 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Eric Desmicht 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 3001-0002 8343 EXAMINER SCHNURR, JOHN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2427 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/18/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): mhmpto@mcandrews-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ERIC DESMICHT and PIERRE R. B. LE PIFRE1 Appeal2014-005275 Application 13/062,898 Technology Center 2427 Before JASON V. MORGAN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Invention Appellants disclose a video decoding device that receives video images encoded as video signal data and, responsive to a request to switch from viewing a previously-selected channel to viewing a newly-selected 1 Appellants identify Entropic Communications Inc. as the real party in interest. Br. 3. Appeal2014-005275 Application 13/062,898 channel, the video decoding device enters a first mode for displaying a preview representation of the video signal data received for the newly- selected channel, while also storing the video signal data. Abstract. The preview mode image is replaced by a real time representation of the video signal data once it is determined that the stored video signal data exceeds a threshold amount. Id. Exemplary Claim Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is representative: 1. A method for use with a video decoding device that receives video images encoded as video signal data for a selected one of multiple channels, the method comprising: in response to a request to switch from a previously- selected channel to a newly-selected channel, entering a first mode for displaying a preview representation of the video signal data, the first mode including receiving video signal data for the newly-selected channel; storing in a buffer the video signal data received for the newly-selected channel; and decoding and providing for display a first available image from the video signal data stored in the buffer received for the newly-selected channel; and in response to determining that the stored video signal data stored in the buffer exceeds a threshold amount, entering a second mode for replacing the preview representation of the video signal data with a real time representation of the video signal data. Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1--4, 8, and 10-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Katayama (US 6,898,246 B2; May 24, 2005). Final Act 2-5. 2 Appeal2014-005275 Application 13/062,898 The Examiner rejects claims 5, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Katayama and Tran (US 2002/0194609 Al; Dec. 19, 2002). Final Act. 5---6. The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Katayama and Gordon (US 6,651,252 Bl; Nov. 18, 2003). Final Act. 6-7. The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Katayama and Rabenko (US 2005/0031097 Al; Feb. 10, 2005). Final Act. 7. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding Katayama discloses "in response to determining that the stored video signal data stored in the buffer exceeds a threshold amount, entering a second mode for replacing the preview representation of the video signal data with a real time representation of the video signal data," as recited in claim l? ANALYSIS We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken. We have considered Appellants' arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for emphasis. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Katayama's proceeding to decoding step 24 when decoding of one group of pictures (GOP) has ended discloses in response to determining that the stored video signal data stored in the buffer exceeds a threshold amount, entering a second mode for replacing the preview representation of the video signal data with a real 3 Appeal2014-005275 Application 13/062,898 time representation of the video signal data. Final Act. 3 (citing Katayama col 7, 1. 61---col. 8, 1. 13; see also Katayama Fig. 3). Appellants contend the Examiner erred because: transitioning to normal decoding when a GOP header is received cannot serve to store a sufficient amount of data based on the maximum expected transmission delay to avoid any instance of emptying the incoming video buffer when compensating for delay, data corruption, and transmission time variations, which can lead to frame freezing, blocking, and jitter. Br. 11. That is, Appellants argue that Katayama's decoding transition does not take place when a signal data stored in the buffer exceeds a threshold amount because the transition in Katayama does not prevent decoding artifacts (i.e., freezing, blocking, and jitter) caused by variations in the quality and timeliness (i.e., delay, data corruption, time variations) of transmitted data. However, the Examiner correctly notes that the features Appellants identify are not claimed. Ans. 2. That is, the claimed invention recites a buffer exceeding a "threshold amount" without reciting what the threshold amount represents. Appellants' arguments are thus incommensurate with the scope of the claimed invention and do not persuasively distinguish the claimed stored data exceeding a threshold amount determination from Katayama's determination that decoding of a GOP has ended. Appellants further argue "Katayama also fails to teach a 'buffer' as claimed." Br. 11. Specifically, Appellants submit "Katayama fails to teach a buffer or any other dedicated memory for holding jitter correction data by 4 Appeal2014-005275 Application 13/062,898 specifically disclosing that 'it is not necessary to provide a dedicated storage medium or storage area.'" Id. (citing Katayama col. 3, 11. 36-40). Appellants' argument is unpersuasive of error because, as the Examiner correctly finds, Katayama explicitly discloses buffer 151. Ans. 2 (citing Katayama Fig. 2, col. 5, 11. 55-56). Appellants do not persuasively distinguish the claimed buff er from Katayama' s buff er 151. For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that Katayama discloses "in response to determining that the stored video signal data stored in the buffer exceeds a threshold amount, entering a second mode for replacing the preview representation of the video signal data with a real time representation of the video signal data," as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2--4, 8, and 10-14, which Appellants do not argue separately. Br. 11-12. Appellants argue claims 5-7, 9, 15, and 16 are similarly patentable; therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we also sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of these claims. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-16. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation