Ex Parte Einarsson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 6, 2016

13386694 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/386,694 03/21/2012 Torbjorn Einarsson
24112 7590 04/06/2016
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
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.
4015-7946 I P28689-US1 1781
EXAMINER
SALTARELLI, DOMINIC D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/06/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TORBJORN EINARSSON, THORSTEN LOHMAR, and
THOMAS RUSERT
Appeal2014-004955
Application 13/386,694
Technology Center 2400
Before NATHAN A. ENGELS, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 20-38. Claims 1-19 are cancelled. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (publ) as the real
party in interest. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal2014-004955
Application 13/386,694
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to enabling a set top box to change a
channel of Moving Pictures Expert Group transport stream (MPEG-TS)
more quickly. (Abstract.) Claim 20, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
20. A method for tuning to a channel of a Moving Pictures
Expert Group transport stream (MPEG-TS), the method
compnsmg:
receiving a MPEG transport stream at a first bit rate, the MPEG
transport stream comprising a plurality of channels;
identifying program clock reference (PCR) values in the
received MPEG transport stream;
selecting a predetermined PCR value in the received MPEG
transport stream;
adjusting the PCR values that occur prior to said predetermined
program clock reference value;
transmitting the MPEG transport stream, including the adjusted
PCR values; at a second bit rate; wherein the second bit
rate is higher than the first bit rate;
wherein adjusting comprises adjusting the respective PCR
values in relation to the difference between the second bit
rate and the first bit rate.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 20-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Cheng et al. (US 2007/0214490 Al, pub. Sept. 13,
2007). (Final Act. 3---6.)
2
Appeal2014-004955
Application 13/386,694
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue:2
Whether Cheng discloses the independent claim 20 limitations:
selecting a predetermined PCR value in the
received MPEG transport stream;
adjusting the PCR values that occur prior to said
predetermined program clock reference value;
wherein adjusting comprises adjusting the
respective PCR values in relation to the difference
between the second bit rate and the first bit rate
and the similar limitations recited in independent claim 33. (App. Br. 5-8.)
ANALYSIS
For the claim limitations at issue, the Examiner relies on the
disclosure in Cheng of speeding up channel changes in a multicast video
transport stream by inserting into the stream, inter alia, a "speed-up Group of
Pictures," which includes a single I-Frame (Intra Frame), and "Video Stream
Specific Information," which includes a "Recalculated Program Clock
Reference (PCR)." (Final Act. 4; Cheng Figs. 1, 2, i-fi-f 19-21, 36, 46-47,
51.)
Appellants argue Cheng does not disclose selecting a predetermined
PCR value, or adjusting PCR values occurring prior to a predetermined PCR
value in relation to a difference between bit rates. (App. Br. 5-8.) In
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Dec. 23, 2013); the Reply
Brief (filed Mar. 17, 2014), the Final Office Action (mailed June 3, 2013);
and the Examiner's Answer (mailed Jan. 16, 2014) for the respective details.
3
Appeal2014-004955
Application 13/386,694
response, the Examiner points out that Cheng discloses adjusting PCR
values as part of the measures taken to speed up channel change, and asserts
that the bit rate is changed "using a temporary 'burst mode' to transfer
packets to a set top box." (Ans. 3--4.) We agree with Appellants that,
although Cheng discloses adjusting PCR values, it does not disclose doing
so for PCR values that occur prior to a predetermined PCR value, nor does it
disclose adjusting PCR values in relation to any change in bit rate. (App. Br.
5, 7.) As Appellants point out, the reference in Cheng to the use of burst
mode does not disclose any change in bit rate. (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 4.)
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference." Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Therefore, on the record before us, we are constrained
to find the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claims 20 and 33.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the anticipation
rejection of independent claims 20 and 33. We also do not sustain the
anticipation rejection of claims 21-32 and 34-38, which claims depend from
claims 20 or 33.
4
Appeal2014-004955
Application 13/386,694
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 20-38 is reversed.
REVERSED
5