Ex Parte Emerson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2013

11209886 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte THEODORE F. EMERSON, ROBERT L. NOONAN,
DAVID F. HEINRICH, and DON DYKES
____________

Appeal 2010-007686
Application 11/209,886
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER,
and JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-007686
Application 11/209,886

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-32, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
1. A remote management controller comprising:
a processor configured to execute instructions; and a video redirection
device, separate from the processor, configured to:
obtain a slice of video data output from a video graphics controller,
calculate at least one value correlative to the slice of video data,
if the calculated value for any portion of the slice differs from a value
for a previously obtained corresponding portion, update a table associated
with an image related to a remote system with the calculated value, and
process the portion of the slice to create a data portion of a network packet in
a network buffer, wherein the processor is configured by the instructions to:
allocate the network buffer, and
provide a header portion of the network packet to the network buffer.

Prior Art
Acampora US 5,168,356 Dec. 1, 1992
Cahill US 5,619,226 Apr. 8, 1997
Graf US 6,170,021 B1 Jan. 2, 2001
Porter US 2002/0163522 A1 Nov. 7, 2002
Van Hook US 2003/0080963 A1 May 1, 2003
Gordon US 2004/0261104 A1 Dec. 23, 2004
Tsai US 7,039,656 B1 May 2, 2006

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-8, 12-19, 21-29, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Gordon, Van Hook, Acampora, and Tsai.
Appeal 2010-007686
Application 11/209,886

3
Claims 9, 20, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gordon, Van Hook, Acampora, Tsai, and Porter.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gordon, Van Hook, Acampora, Tsai, and Cahill.
Claims 11 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gordon, Van Hook, Acampora, Tsai, and Graf.

ANALYSIS
Section 103 rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 12-19, 21-29, and 31
Appellants contend that the combination of Gordon, Van Hook,
Acampora, and Tsai does not teach a “video redirection device” that implies
an original destination and a new destination. In particular, Appellants
contend that the head end equipment (HEE) 202 of Gordon does not redirect
video, and that Gordon’s encoding unit 216 does not obtain a slice of video
data output from a video graphics controller. App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 3-5.
The Examiner finds that Figure 2 of Gordon teaches a video redirection
device shown by HEE 202 that selects data and re-modulates data for
subscribers. Ans. 16-17, 31-32. Appellants have not provided a definition
of video redirection device that excludes the HEE 202 taught by Gordon.
We agree with the Examiner that Gordon teaches the claimed video
redirection device for the reasons given by the Examiner in the Final
Rejection and Examiner’s Answer.
Appellants contend that the combination of Gordon, Van Hook,
Acampora, and Tsai does not teach “obtain[ing] a slice of video data output
from a video graphics controller” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8-11.
According to Appellants, the meaning of “video graphics controller” is
Appeal 2010-007686
Application 11/209,886

4
limited by paragraph 33 of Appellants’ Specification. However, paragraph
33 of Appellants’ Specification does not provide a definition of “video
graphics controller” that excludes the Examiner’s interpretation of a
controller that manages the slice based encoding process. See Ans. 32-37.
Appellants contend that the combination of Gordon, Van Hook,
Acampora, and Tsai does not teach “if the calculated value for any portion
of the slice differs from a value for a previously obtained corresponding
portion . . . process the portion of the slice to create a data portion of a
network packet in a network buffer” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11-12.
The Examiner finds that Gordon teaches video slices, Acampora teaches
performing checks of CRC values in transport headers to find errors in video
slices, and Tsai teaches comparing a calculated CRC value to a previously
obtained CRC value. Ans. 37-41. We agree with the Examiner. Appellants
have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to show that comparing
a calculated value to a previous value as shown by Figures 8 and 9 of Tsai of
CRC data in the packet headers taught by Acampora for the video slices of
Gordon was anything more than the combination of familiar elements
according to known methods that yields predictable results.
Appellants contend that the combination of Gordon, Van Hook,
Acampora, and Tsai does not teach “a processor . . . configured by the
instructions to: allocate the network buffer, and provide a header portion of
the network packet to the network buffer” as recited in claim 1. App. Br.
12-15; Reply Br. 5-6. The Examiner finds that the combination of Gordon
and Van Hook teaches this limitation. Ans. 41-46. We agree with the
Examiner.
Appeal 2010-007686
Application 11/209,886

5
We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact made in the Final Rejection
and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner for the reasons given by the Examiner in the Final
Rejection and Examiner’s Answer.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants
have not presented arguments for separate patentability of claims 2-5, 7, and
8 which fall with claim 1. Appellants present arguments for the patentability
of claims 12 and 22 similar to those presented for claim 1 which we find
unpersuasive. Appellants have not presented arguments for separate
patentability of claims 13-19, 21, 23-29, and 31.

Section 103 rejection of claim 6
Appellants contend that the combination of Gordon, Van Hook,
Acampora, and Tsai does not teach “video data is obtained from a direct
video output of the video graphics controller” as recited in claim 6. App. Br.
17-18. The Examiner finds that the combination teaches this limitation,
since the video source is directly send from the encoding unit before sent via
connection 230 as shown in Figure 2 of Gordon. Ans. 54-55. We agree
with the Examiner. We sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.

Section 103 rejection of claims 9, 20, and 30
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of
claims 9, 20, and 30, which fall with claim 1.

Appeal 2010-007686
Application 11/209,886

6
Section 103 rejection of claim 10
Appellants contend that the combination of Gordon, Van Hook,
Acampora, Tsai, and Cahill does not teach “the processor notifies the
encoder engine when the network buffer has been allocated” as recited in
claim 10. App. Br. 18-19. The Examiner finds that Cahill teaches this
limitation. Ans. 55-56 (citing Cahill col. 26, ll. 50-60). We agree with the
Examiner. We sustain the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Section 103 rejection of claims 11 and 32
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of
claims 11 and 32 which fall with claim 1.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-8, 12-19, 21-29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Gordon, Van Hook, Acampora, and Tsai
is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 9, 20, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gordon, Van Hook, Acampora, Tsai, and Porter is
affirmed.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gordon, Van Hook, Acampora, Tsai, and Cahill is
affirmed.
The rejection of claims 11 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gordon, Van Hook, Acampora, Tsai, and Graf is affirmed.
Appeal 2010-007686
Application 11/209,886

7
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(f).

AFFIRMED

babc