Ex Parte Gerrits

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 12, 2008

10047032 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 12, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ANDREAS JOHANNES GERRITS
____________________

Appeal 2007-3246
Application 10/047,032
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Decided: February 12, 2008
____________________

Before: JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
KEVIN F. TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from final rejections of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appellant discloses systems and methods for transmitting and
receiving signals via transmission channels. The signals are split before
being transmitted into first and second frequency band signals and
recombined at a receiver, where missing frames of the signals may be
reconstructed based on the other frequency band signal. (Specification 6:15-
30 and 8:3-15).
Appeal 2007-3246
Application 10/047,032

The independent claim 1, which is deemed to be representative, reads
as follows:
1. A transmission system (10) comprising a transmitter (12) for
transmitting an input signal to a receiver (14) via a transmission
channel (16), the transmitter (12) comprising a splitter (20) for
splitting up a single input signal on a single input line into at
least first and second frequency band signals, the transmitter
(12) further comprising a first encoder (22) for encoding the
first frequency band signal into a first encoded frequency band
signal and a second encoder (24) for encoding the second
frequency band signal into a second encoded frequency band
signal, the transmitter (12) being arranged for transmitting the
first and second encoded frequency band signals via the
transmission channel (16) to the receiver (14), the receiver (14)
comprising a first decoder (26) for decoding the first encoded
frequency band signal into a first decoded frequency band
signal and a second decoder (28) for decoding the second
encoded frequency band signal into a second decoded
frequency band signal, the receiver (14) further comprising a
combiner (30) for combining the first and second decoded
frequency band signals into an output signal, the receiver (14)
further comprising reconstruction means (48) for reconstructing
the second decoded frequency band signal when the second
decoded frequency band signal is not available, characterised in
that the reconstruction means (48) are arranged for
reconstructing the second decoded frequency band signal from
the first decoded frequency band signal.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Zinser US 5,384,793 Jan. 24, 1995
Chai US 6,137,915 Oct. 24, 2000
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-18 and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Chai. The Examiner also
2
Appeal 2007-3246
Application 10/047,032

rejected claims 3, 7, 11, 15 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Chai and Zinser.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in indicating that the
claimed subject matter would have been anticipated or obvious. More
specifically, Appellant has argued that elements of the independent claims
are not taught or suggested by Chai and that Zinser fails to cure the
deficiencies of the anticipation rejection. (Br. 10-41). The Examiner finds
that Chai teaches all of the elements of the independent claims either
explicitly or inherently. (Answer 8-11).
We reverse.

ISSUE
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding claims 1-20
anticipated or rendered obvious in view of the cited prior art references?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The transmission system includes a transmitter for transmitting an
input signal to a receiver via a transmission channel. The transmitter
includes a splitter for splitting up a single input signal on a single input line
into at least first and second frequency band signals, where each frequency
band signal is encoded by a respective encoder. The receiver has first and
second decoders for decoding the first and second encoded frequency band
signals and a combiner for combining the decoded frequency band signals
into an output signal. The receiver also has reconstruction means for
reconstructing the second decoded frequency band signal when the second
decoded frequency band signal is not available, from the first decoded
3
Appeal 2007-3246
Application 10/047,032

frequency band signal. (Specification 5:25-27; 5:32 – 6:6; and 8:3-15; Fig.
2, elements 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30 and 48).
2. With respect to the independent claims, claims 1, 5 and 17 recite “a
first decoder,” “a second decoder” and “a combiner,” and claims 9 and 13
recite “combining the first and second decoded frequency band signals into
an output signal.”
3. Chai discloses a system that includes an image/video encoder for
receiving and encoding video data into an elementary video bitstream, where
the video encoder is capable of generating hierarchical subband decomposed
coefficients. The system may also include an audio encoder for receiving
and encoding audio data. The bitstreams are packetized and then
multiplexed by the transport stream multiplexer to produce a transport
stream. The transport stream is transmitted over a transmission channel,
where thereafter the transport stream is demultiplexed and decoded by a
transport stream demultiplexor to serve as inputs to video decoder 270 and
audio decoder 290, whose outputs are decoded video signals 275 and audio
signals 295, respectively. (Abstract; col. 3, ll. 29-38 and 54-64; col. 4, ll.
15-22 and 31-42; Fig. 2, elements 210, 2201, 220n, 225, 240, 250, 260, 270,
275, 290 and 295)
4. While the splitting of the audio and video signals may occur before
the signals are input into the system of Chai, Chai does not explicitly
disclose such a splitting. Chai does not disclose that signals output from the
image/video decoder and the audio decoder are combined.
5. Zinser is directed to a method of correcting random errors,
including detecting the failure of a correction algorithm and regenerating an
4
Appeal 2007-3246
Application 10/047,032

estimated value to replace the corrupted value. The estimated value may be
a weighted-sum average of the values corresponding to the energy of the
previous frame and the adjacent energies in the current frame. (Abstract,
col. 3, ll. 8-16)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found if
the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim. See In re King,
801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir.
1984). In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single prior art reference
that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim
invalidates that claim by anticipation. Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2005), citing Minn. Mining & Mfg.
Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1565 (Fed.
Cir. 1992).
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If that
burden is met, then the burden shifts to the Appellants to overcome the
prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d
1339, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when
‘the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the
prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious
at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
5
Appeal 2007-3246
Application 10/047,032

art to which said subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
127 S.Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007).
The claims on appeal should not be confined to specific embodiments
described in the Specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). During ex parte prosecution, claims must be
interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow since applicants have
the power during the administrative process to amend the claims to avoid the
prior art. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that Chai fails to disclose a splitting of the input
signal, where apparently Chai receives the audio and video signals
separately. We agree that Chai fails to teach such a splitting. (Finding of
Fact 4). Appellant also argues that Chai fails to disclose a combiner for
combining the first and second decoded frequency band signals. As
discussed above, (Finding of Fact 3), Chai describes separate image/video
and audio decoders and does not disclose any combination of the signals
output from those decoders. (Finding of Fact 4). As such, all of the
elements of the independent claims have not been taught by Chai and we
find the anticipation rejection of the independent claims to be in error.
The Examiner argues that “it is well-known in the art that the
operation of subband encoding performs a necessary operation of splitting a
signal into frequency bands.” (Answer 9). However, given that the rejection
of the independent claims was made under § 102, such speculation is inapt.
The Examiner also finds that separate decoding is implied by Chai and the
combination of those decoded signals “would need to be performed.”
6
Appeal 2007-3246
Application 10/047,032

(Answer 10). However, the outputs are audio and video signals that could
just as easily remain separate, and Chai does not disclose any combination of
the signals. (Finding of Fact 4). As such, we do not find the Examiner’s
arguments to be compelling and find that the anticipation rejection to be in
error.
We also note that the Examiner has cited other art of record, (Answer
8), as teaching “early limitations,” i.e. limitations in the claims not related to
the reconstruction of the second decoded frequency band signal. However,
no such rejections, applying this other art, are before us, or the Appellant,
and we cannot speculate as to how the Examiner would formulate such a
rejection.
With respect to the obviousness rejections of claims 3, 7, 11, 15 and
19, those rejections rely on the teachings of Chai to teach or suggest all of
the elements of the independent claims, upon which those claims depend.
We agree with Appellant that Zinser fails to teach or suggest elements of the
independent claims not taught by Chai. Similarly, we find that the rejection
of claims 3, 7, 11, 15 and 19 is also in error and should be reversed.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) & 103(a).

7
Appeal 2007-3246
Application 10/047,032

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED

tdl/gw

PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR NY 10510
8