10128639 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 24, 2009)

Ex Parte Duquesnois

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 24, 2009

10128639 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 24, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte LAURENT MICHEL OLIVIER DUQUESNOIS ____________________ Appeal 2008-4129 Application 10/128,639 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Decided:1 March 25, 2009 ____________________ Before JOHN C. MARTIN, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery). Appeal 2008-4129 Application 10/128,639 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(2002). A. INVENTION According to Appellant, the invention relates to data-processing device for converting data from a first format into a second format, the data comprising at least a scene description and a command intended to modify the scene description (Spec. 1, ll. 1-3). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below: 1. A data-processing device for converting data from a first format into a BIFS binary format, said data comprising at least a scene description and a command intended to modify said scene description, comprising: - a scene transcoder for converting the scene description from the first format into the BIFS binary format, and - a command transcoder for converting the command from the first format into the BIFS binary format and having access to information comprised in the scene transcoder. Appeal 2008-4129 Application 10/128,639 3 C. REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Bourges-Sevenier US 2002/0083032 A1 Jun. 27, 2002 (filed Nov. 30, 2000) Macromedia Flash MX, About Flash, (1993-2002) (herein Macromedia). Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the teachings of Macromedia in view of Bourges-Sevenier. We reverse. II. ISSUE Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Macromedia and Bourges-Sevenier teaches or would have suggested a command transcoder “having access to information comprised in the scene transcoder” (claim 1)? III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Macromedia 1. Macromedia discloses means for exporting a movie (p. 3; Fig. 3). Appeal 2008-4129 Application 10/128,639 4 Bourges-Sevenier 2. Bourges-Sevenier discloses converting Virtual Reality Modeling Language (VRML) command and animation scenes into Binary Format for Scene (BIFS) file (p. 6, [0060]), wherein the reformatted VRML file is passed to an animation extractor 404 and the extracted, or animation, file is passed to a BIFS-Anim encoder 406 while the remaining command file is passed to a BIFS-Command encoder 408 (p. 6, [0061]; Fig. 4). 3. The command file from the animation extractor 404 is accepted by a bounds determiner 502 of the BIFS-Command encoder 408, where the command nodes in the VRML file is parsed and passed to a quantization processor 504 which modifies the command file and outputs a modified command file to a BIFS encoding engine 506 (p. 6, [0063]-[0065]; Fig. 5). IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW 35 U.S.C. § 103 In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). “[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of Appeal 2008-4129 Application 10/128,639 5 presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). V. ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Bourges-Sevenier discloses BIFS-Anim encoder for converting an animation file from the VMRL format into the BIFS binary format, and a BIFS-Command encoder for converting a command file from the VMRL format into the BIFS binary format (FF 2), wherein the BIFS- Command encoder parses the command file and modifies the command file for output (FF 3). We find an artisan would have understood the BIFS- Anim encoder of the combined teachings of Macromedia and Bourges- Sevenier to be “a scene transcoder for converting the scene description from the first format into the BIFS binary format” (claim 1). Similarly, the artisan would have understood the BIFS-Command encoder to be a command transcoder for converting the command from the first format into the BIFS binary format” (id.). Appeal 2008-4129 Application 10/128,639 6 However, Appellant contends that Micromedia “does not teach or suggest, inter alia, a command transcoder for converting the command from the first format into the BIFS binary format and having access to information comprised in the scene transcoder” (Supp. Br. 6), and that “[t]he BIFS- Command encoder 408 of Bourges-Sevenier[sic], however, does not ‘[have] access to information comprised in the scene transcoder’” (Supp. Br. 7). The Examiner finds that Macromedia “teaches a step that is consistent with the definition of converting or transcoding,” which includes “conversion upon selection of ‘Export Movie’ 320 wherein the device to process the conversion is inherent in order for the software to be implemented” (Ans. 7). Accordingly, an issue we address on appeal is whether the combination of Macromedia and Bourges-Sevenier teaches or would have suggested “a command transcoder for converting the command from the first format into the BIFS binary format and having access to information comprised in the scene transcoder” (claim 1), and in particular, a command transcoder “having access to information comprised in the scene transcoder” (id.). After reviewing the record on appeal, we agree with Appellant. Macromedia merely discloses exporting a movie (FF 1). Though the Examiner finds that, in Macromedia, in exporting the movie, “the conversion is inherent,” Macromedia is silent as to any command transcoder “having access to information comprised in the scene transcoder” as required by claim 1. Appeal 2008-4129 Application 10/128,639 7 Further, while Bourges-Sevenier discloses a scene transcoder for converting scene description into the BIFS binary format and a command transcoder for converting the command into the BIFS binary format (FF 2), we agree with the Appellant that the command transcoder of Bourges- Sevenier does not have “access to information comprised in the scene transcoder” (Supp. Br. 7), as required by claim 1. In fact, the command transcoder of Bourges-Sevenier merely has access to the command file received from the extractor without any access to the scene information (FF 3). That is, there is no teaching or even a suggestion in any of the references of a command transcoder having access to information in the scene transcoder. As such, we will reverse the rejection of representative claim 1 and claims 2-6 standing therewith over Macromedia in view of Bourges- Sevenier. We thus conclude that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons as set forth above. VII. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in finding claims 1-6 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the teachings of Macromedia and Bourges-Sevenier. Appeal 2008-4129 Application 10/128,639 8 VIII. DECISION We have not sustained the Examiner's rejection with respect to any claim on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6 is reversed. REVERSED rwk PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS P.O. BOX 3001 BRIARCLIFF MANOR NY 10510