Ex Parte Gao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2016

11775478 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111775,478 07/10/2007
15757 7590 02/24/2016
Qualcomm /Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
2200 Ross A venue
Suite 3600
Dallas, TX 75201-7932
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Qiang Gao
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.
QLXX.P0326US (070875) 5051
EXAMINER
LAKHIA, VIRAL S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2431
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/24/2016 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
doipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte QIANG GAO and PEISONG CHEN
Appeal2014-008003
Application 11/775,478
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-3, 9-16, 22-29, 35--42, and48-52. Claims 4-8, 17-21, 30-34,
and 43-47 are all allowed. An Oral Hearing was held on February 16, 2016.
A transcript of the hearing will be made of record in due course. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Qualcomm, Inc. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal2014-008003
Application 11/775,478
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to techniques for switching between
channels of digital multimedia content. In particular, a decoding device
decodes and renders to a display at least one frame of a segment of data prior
to receiving the entire segment. In certain aspects, the decoding device may
render one of the frames of the segment and freeze the rendered frame until
the decoding device receives all of the frames of the segment. In other
aspects, the decoding device may render frames of one or more segments at
a reduced rendering rate until the receiving and rendering operations of
decoding device are synchronized such that the rendering of the current
segment occurs at substantially the same time as the receiving of the next
segment. By rendering at least frame prior to receiving the entire segment
the decoding device more quickly displays content to a user during a channel
switching event. Abstract.
Independent claim 1, which is illustrative, is reproduced below.
1. A method for processing video data, the method
compnsmg:
decoding at least one coded frame of a plurality of coded
frames of at least a portion of a segment of the video data,
wherein the at least one coded frame is received subsequent to a
channel switch request; and
rendering, in response to the channel switch request, the at
least one decoded frame to a display before a playback time
associated with the at least one decoded frame.
2
Appeal2014-008003
Application 11/775,478
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-3, 12-16, 25-29, 38--42, 51 and 52 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Dai et al. (US
2010/0064316 Al; Mar. 11, 2010).
2. Claims 9-11, 22-24, 35-37 and 48-50 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dai and Liu et al. (US
2006/0039475 Al; Feb. 23, 2006).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue2 "Dai 's disclosure does not include rendering a
frame before its associated playback time." App. Br. 8. According to
Appellants, "[t]he latency reduction in Dai is in the latency between the
channel change event and the first video frame being rendered. In other
words, Dai teaches a method that allows a frame to be rendered faster, after
a channel change event, than it would have been rendered without Dai 's
method, but does not teach that the frame is rendered before its associated
playback time." App. Br. 9.
The Examiner responds:
Dai' s teaching of rendering i-frame with time stamp and
displaying to the user the enhanced frame during channel change
- has playback time associated with the rendered frame otherwise
the frames would appear blur, out of sync and frames would be
out of order for the user to watch delayed program after channel
switch. Examiner further describes that displayed frame is
equivalent to presentation time stamped frame which covers the
claimed limitation. Therefore it is apparent that iframe is
2 Appellants present additional arguments in their Appeal Brief. However,
because the identified argument is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach
the merits of these additional arguments.
3
Appeal2014-008003
Application 11/775,478
rendered before its playback time during channel change request.
Examiner describes that, rendering with timestamp of frames is
equivalent to playback time, which is also display time as it is
covered by Dai in para 30 - 32 and 27, Fig 3.
Ans. 7.
We are persuaded of Examiner error. We agree with Appellants that a
reduction in latency between channel change and when the first video frame
is rendered is not the same as rendering a frame to a display before a
playback time associated with the frame. Further, to the extent the Examiner
finds that Dai teaches rendering a frame before its associated playback time
by teaching rendering a video frame that has an associated playback time,
and then, after rendering it, displaying it at its associated playback time, we
disagree. As Appellants point out, the claim requires rendering the frame to
a display before the playback time associated with the frame. Reply Br. 4.
Thus, even if the frame is rendered at a time before it is displayed, such
teaching does not satisfy the disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1 and of independent claims 14, 27, and 40, which
contain substantially the same limitation and which the Examiner rejected
based on substantially the same evidence and reasoning. Based on the same
reasoning, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims
2-3, 12-13, 15, 16, 25-26, 28, 29, 38-39, 41, 42, and 51-52, which depend
from one of independent claims 1, 14, 27, or 40 and which were rejected as
anticipated by Dai. Finally, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
dependent claims 9-11, 22-24, 35-37 and 48-50 because Liu does not cure
Dai's deficiency.
4
Appeal2014-008003
Application 11/775,478
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 9-16, 22-29, 35--42, and 48-
5 2 is reversed.
REVERSED
5