Ex Parte Hanes

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 23, 2010

10753251 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 23, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte DAVID H. HANES
____________________

Appeal 2009-005842
Application 10/753,2511
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Decided: February 23, 2010
____________________

Before JOHN C. MARTIN, MARC S. HOFF,
and BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
Appeal 2009-005842
Application 10/753,251

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s invention concerns a system for analyzing moving
pictures expert group (MPEG)-formatted files, having a format analysis
software application and a processing element operable to execute the
application, wherein the application is adapted to read a rule having at least
one logical instruction defining a format requirement and to compare a
portion of the file with the rule to make a determination of the validity of the
file (Abstract).
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method of analyzing a moving pictures expert group (MPEG)-
formatted video/audio file, comprising:

defining a rule comprising at least one parameter that logically defines
a format requirement for determining whether the MPEG-formatted file is
decodable on a first type of MPEG-capable decoder but not decodable on a
second type of MPEG-capable decoder;

reading a portion of the file;

comparing the portion of the file with the rule; and

determining whether the file violates the rule.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Udea US 2001/0026511 A1 Oct. 4, 2001
Shirakawa US 2002/0044760 A1 Apr. 18, 2002
Nakamura US 2002/0169742 A1 Nov. 14, 2002

Appeal 2009-005842
Application 10/753,251

3
Fu US 2004/0136352 A1 July 15, 2004
Wee US 6,973,130 B1 Dec. 6, 2005

Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-11, 14-16, 18, 19, 21-23, 25, and 26 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wee in view of Fu.
Claims 2, 3, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wee in view of Fu and Shirakawa.
Claims 6, 12, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wee in view of Fu and Ueda.
Claims 17 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wee in view of Fu and Nakamura.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Appeal Brief (filed Mar. 14, 2008 ), the Reply Brief
(filed Aug. 12, 2008) and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed June 13, 2008) for
their respective details.

ISSUE
The Examiner finds that Fu discloses defining a rule comprising at
least one parameter that logically defines a format requirement for
determining whether the MPEG-formatted file is decodable on a first type of
MPEG-capable decoder but not decodable on a second type of MPEG-
capable decoder (Ans. 4, 11-12).
Appellant contends that although Fu appears to be disclosing that non-
MPEG formatted files such as direct satellite system (DSS) encoded files are
converted to MPEG format for use by set-top boxes, Fu does not appear to
disclose or even suggest that once the converted file is in MPEG format that
a rule is defined or used for determining whether the MPEG-formatted file is
Appeal 2009-005842
Application 10/753,251

4
decodable on a first type of MPEG-capable decoder but not decodable on a
second type of MPEG-capable decoder (App. Br. 6-7).
Appellant’s contentions present us with the following issue:
Did Appellant show that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Wee and Fu teaches defining a rule comprising at least one
parameter that logically defines a format requirement for determining
whether the MPEG-formatted file is decodable on a first type of MPEG-
capable decoder but not decodable on a second type of MPEG-capable
decoder?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. According to Appellant, the invention concerns a system for
analyzing moving pictures expert group (MPEG)-formatted files, having a
format analysis software application and a processing element operable to
execute the application, wherein the application is adapted to evaluate an
MPEG rule set comprised of one or more rules defining one or more format
requirements (for the purpose of reading a rule) and to compare a portion of
the file with the rule to make a determination of the validity of the file. A
group of pictures (GOP) file is optional in MPEG-formatted files but is
required for playback of the file by a DVD device (Spec. para. [0024]). In
the event that a GOP header is not located in the MPEG portion intermediate
sequence header 60 and frame sequence 50A, application 122 determines
Appeal 2009-005842
Application 10/753,251

5
that the MPEG-formatted file is incompatible for recording on a DVD
(Abstract, Spec. paras. [0025], [0028], and [0029]).
Wee
2. Wee discloses an MPEG or other video system, having a
"region map" comprised of header information for each frame indicating for
each independently coded region in the frame which "image slices" contain
data for that region. Using a system of globally and locally defined region
groups, the map permits automatic identification of an object through
multiple frames (notwithstanding movement) and for select decoding and
extraction of that object only, without necessarily decoding all irrelevant
image data. (Abstract).
3. Wee discloses an encoder that uses an independent region
("IR") coder 175 for encoding motion vectors from the motion estimation
system 165 together with the quantized data. The IR coder applies run-
length encoding and Huffman coding to quantized data, and inserts
appropriate MPEG header codes (including slice codes) to generate an
output bit stream 177. Not all image frames are compressed using motion
vectors. However, using an M.P.E.G.-2 process, all data within "‘I’" frames
are encoded without using motion estimation and compensation, and select
data blocks within "‘P’" and "‘B’" frames may also be encoded in this
manner. A control routine 179 determines this encoding according to well-
known procedures and algorithms developed for M.P.E.G. coding (Fig. 3,
col. 13, ll. 14-30).
4. Wee discloses the beginning of a sequence in a MPEG format is
typically recognized by examining the encoded bit stream and detecting
twenty-three consecutive zeros, followed by a "one" and the eight bit
Appeal 2009-005842
Application 10/753,251

6
sequence "‘10110101’" ("‘sequence start code’" hexadecimal value is
"‘0000001B5’" and is designated by the reference numeral 325). Sequence
header information 326 then includes various parameters such as picture
size, bit rate, buffer size, video standard, and similar parameters, recognized
by control codes that proceed [sic] these parameters (Fig. 11, col. 22, ll. 18-
37).
5. Wee discloses software that determines for each frame the
precise number of regions in the frame, wherein the sequence or GOP header
information sets forth the total number of region groups for the sequence or
single GOP (this information is used to determine region map (table) size for
each frame) (Fig. 7; col. 17, ll. 7-21).
6. Wee discloses that each GOP also contains header information
333, which is recognized by detecting a GOP start code 329 of twenty-three
leading zeros followed by the nine bit sequence "‘110111000’" (this
hexadecimal GOP start code is "‘000001B8’"). The GOP header
information, in connection with the preferred signal format, also preferably
includes a user data start code 334 ("‘000001B2’") followed by a group map
identification code and group map indicating which global region groups are
present in the GOP (Fig. 11, col. 23, ll. 2-12).
7. Wee discloses that a "sequence" 315 can be an entire movie or
portion thereof. Each sequence includes header information that contains
digital parameters used to decode and display images appearing in the
sequence. Each sequence header additionally contains space for user-
defined control commands and information (Fig. 11, col. 21, l. 62 - col. 22,
l. 2).
Appeal 2009-005842
Application 10/753,251

7
Fu
8. Fu discloses a method and system for converting a direct
satellite system (DSS) transport stream into a digital video broadcast (DVB)
standard MPEG transport stream that includes encapsulating at least a prefix
portion and a payload portion of a DSS transport packet into at least a header
portion and a payload portion of a DVB transport packet. In light of
broadband networks continuing to evolve, this method of conversion was
developed due to the need to provide access for legacy devices to ensure
interoperability with legacy and disparate systems. For example, in some
applications an access device such as a set-top box may require the
conversion of DSS proprietary transport streams to standardized DVB
transport streams in order to communicate with standardized external MPEG
devices, such as personal video recorders (PVRs) or high definition
televisions (HDTVs). In order to provide compatibility and interoperability
between proprietary and legacy systems, and standardized DVB MPEG
compliant systems, it may be necessary to convert the transport stream to
meet system requirements. As such, any resulting transport stream should
be fully MPEG2 DVB compliant, since a set-top box may lack prior
knowledge pertaining to the type of external MPEG decoding device that
receives and converts the transport stream (Abstract, paras. [0005], [0009],
and [0024]).
9. Fu discloses an MPEG encoding system that includes an A/D
converter 16, a video processor 18, a sub-picture encoder 24, a presentation
control information (PCI) encoder 26, and an MPEG Video encoder 28. The
output signal generated from the video processor 18 may also be received
and processed by an MPEG video encoder 28 which, in turn, may be
Appeal 2009-005842
Application 10/753,251

8
configured to format the video signal in MPEG format. A conditional access
buffer 38 controls propagation of the packets through MUX 36. A track
buffer 40 buffers and assembles data packets for further processing. Finally,
the assembled packets may be encoded with a forward error correction
algorithm within the forward error correction block (FEC) 42 for
transmission over a channel as an MPEG formatted digital audio/video
signal (Fig. 1A, paras. [0037] and [0039]).
10. Fu discloses an MPEG program may contain a plurality of data
streams that are encoded and compressed. The encoded and compressed
data streams may be decoded in a set-top box and viewed on a TV. Factors
such as a bit rate of the encoded stream, quality of the original source
content, and encoder algorithm may typically determine the quality of the
output signal. The type of encoding may determine whether another system
will be able to decode and interpret a received MPEG data stream (para.
[0025]).
Shirakawa
11. Shirakawa discloses a video disk recording/playback device for
converting a digital video signal or the like into high-efficiency coded data
and recording the coded data on a video disk, or for restoring high-efficiency
coded data recorded on the video disk and reproducing an output image.
Shirakawa discloses an MPEG video sequence having a sequence header
(SH1) followed by interleaved sequence and GOP headers. When retrieving
a picture, the starting address of the GOP header is acquired, and decoding is
ensued (Abstract, paras. [0010], [0269], and [0323]).
12. Shirakawa discloses that an object of the invention is to
facilitate editing such as overwriting and to enable fast playback or retrieval
Appeal 2009-005842
Application 10/753,251

9
suitable to viewer's visual characteristics, to reproduce consecutive ‘I’
pictures smoothly, and to raise the speed of fast playback or retrieval in
harmony with human visual characteristics (paras. [0048] and [0051]).
Ueda
13. Ueda discloses an information recording medium comprising a
user area, and a spare area including a replacement area, wherein the
replacement area may be used instead of a defective area in the user area.
The user area and the spare area include a plurality of sectors. Each of the
plurality of sectors includes a user data area for recording user data, and an
attribute data area for recording defect replacement allowance attribute data.
The video and audio reproduction program detects the presence or absence
of three files (i.e. “‘ROOT’” directory, “‘VIDEO_TS’” directory, and
“‘VIDEO_TS.IFO’”) in order to identify the DVD-Video format (para.
[0208]).
Nakamura
14. Nakamura discloses a data structure that is constructed by a
hierarchy structure comprising a video sequence layer, a GOP layer, a
picture layer, a slice layer, a macroblock layer, and a block layer, wherein
the video sequence layer starts from a sequence start code and ends at a
sequence end code. Control data such as image size, aspect ratio, other data
necessary for decoding, and a plurality of GOPs in which the image size and
the like are equal are arranged between the sequence start code and the
sequence end code (paras. [0008] and [0103]).

Appeal 2009-005842
Application 10/753,251

10
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
On the issue of obviousness pursuant to 35 U.S.C § 103, the Supreme
Court has stated that “[t]he obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a
formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Further, the Court
stated “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
Id. at 416. “One of the ways in which a patent’s subject matter can be
proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of the invention a
known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the
patent’s claims.” Id. at 419-420.
The determination of obviousness must consider, inter alia, whether a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the
prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have
been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Where the teachings of two or more prior art references conflict, the
Examiner must weigh the power of each reference to suggest solutions to
one of ordinary skill in the art, considering the degree to which one
reference might accurately discredit another. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). If the proposed modification would render the prior
art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then
there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In
re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Further, our reviewing court
has held that “[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of
ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from
Appeal 2009-005842
Application 10/753,251

11
following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction
divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27
F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Para-Ordnance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers
Int’l., Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-11, 14-16, 18, 19, 21-23, 25, and 26
Independent claims 1 and 18 recite “a rule comprising at least one
parameter that logically defines a format requirement for determining
whether the MPEG-formatted file is decodable on a first type of MPEG-
capable decoder but not decodable on a second type of MPEG-capable
decoder.”
Independent claim 10 recites “a rule having at least one logical
instruction defining a format requirement for determining whether the
MPEG-formatted file is decodable on a first type of MPEG-capable decoder
but not decodable on a second type of MPEG-capable decoder.”
Independent claim 25 recites “a rule having at least one logical
instruction defining a digital versatile disc (DVD) format requirement, the
rule specifying a particular portion of the file to be tested by the rule, and the
application comparing the specified portion of the file with the rule.”
The Examiner finds that Fu discloses defining a rule comprising at
least one parameter that logically defines a format requirement for
determining whether the MPEG-formatted file is decodable on a first type of
MPEG-capable decoder but not decodable on a second type of MPEG-
capable decoder (Ans. 4, 11-12).
Appeal 2009-005842
Application 10/753,251

12
Appellant contends that although Fu appears to be disclosing that
direct satellite system (DSS) encoded files are converted to MPEG format
for use by set-top boxes, Fu does not appear to disclose or even suggest that,
once the converted file is in MPEG format, a rule is defined or used for
determining whether the MPEG-formatted file is decodable on a first type of
MPEG-capable decoder but not decodable on a second type of MPEG-
capable decoder (App. Br. 6-7).
We agree with Appellant. Although the combination of Wee and Fu
discloses examination of the sequence and GOP header within a video
sequence pattern of a standard MPEG file, we do not agree with the
Examiner that Fu discloses defining a rule comprising at least one parameter
that logically defines a format requirement for determining whether the
MPEG-formatted file is decodable on a first type of MPEG-capable decoder
but not decodable on a second type of MPEG-capable decoder. Specifically,
Wee discloses that an MPEG formatted file is examined to detect the
sequence header wherein a portion of the file is examined to detect the
sequence start code having a hexadecimal value of “0000001B5” (FF 4).
Wee further discloses a software program that determines the precise
number of regions in a frame by examining the sequence and GOP header
information which sets forth the total number of region groups for the
sequence (FF 5). Fu discloses a method for converting a DSS transport
stream into a DVD standard MPEG transport stream without any reference
to a rule set or definition that determines whether the initial file format or the
converted file format is compatible and decodable on a MPEG-capable
decoder (FF 8). It is apparent that the conversion disclosed in Fu is
automatic.
Appeal 2009-005842
Application 10/753,251

13
Therefore, because Appellant has established error in the Examiner’s
rejection, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 5,
7-11, 14-16, 18, 19, 21-23, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wee in view of Fu.
Claims 2, 3, and 13
As noted supra, we reversed the rejection of claims 1 and 10 from
which claims 2, 3, and 13 depend. We have reviewed Shirakawa (the
additional reference applied by the Examiner to reject these claims), and find
that it does not teach the limitation that is absent from the combination of
Wee and Fu.
We therefore reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 3, and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for the same reasons expressed with respect to the
§ 103 rejection of parent claims 1 and 10, supra.
Claims 6, 12, and 20
As noted supra, we reversed the rejection of claims 1 and 10, from
which claims 6, 12, and 20 depend. We have reviewed Ueda (the additional
reference applied by the Examiner to reject these claims) and find that it
does not teach the limitation that is absent from the combination of Wee and
Fu.
We therefore reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 6, 12, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for the same reasons expressed with respect to the
§ 103 rejection of parent claims 1 and 10, supra.
Claims 17 and 24
As noted supra, we reversed the rejection of claims 1 and 10 from
which claims 17 and 24 depend. We have reviewed Nakamura (the
additional reference applied by the Examiner to reject these claims), and find
Appeal 2009-005842
Application 10/753,251

14
that it does not teach the limitation that is absent from the combination of
Wee and Fu.
We therefore reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 17 and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for the same reasons expressed with respect to the
§ 103 rejection of parent claims 1 and 10, supra.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Wee and Fu teaches defining a rule comprising at least one
parameter that logically defines a format requirement for determining
whether the MPEG-formatted file is decodable on a first type of MPEG-
capable decoder but not decodable on a second type of MPEG-capable
decoder, as required by independent claims 1, 10, 18, and 25. Appellant has
also shown that this deficiency is not remedied by the additional references
relied in the rejections of some of the dependent claims.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-26 is reversed.

REVERSED

KIS

Hewlett-Packard Company
Intellectual Property Administration
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528