Ex Parte Harter et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 29, 2010

10444468 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 29, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte WERNER HARTER and EBERHARD BOEHL
____________

Appeal 2009-006179
Application 10/444,468
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1-5 and 7-20. Claim 6 has been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-006179
Application 10/444,468

2
We Reverse.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for transmitting information in a network
including at least three subscribers, comprising:

transmitting, from a first subscriber, the information in at
least a first frame of a predefined length and structure;

transmitting the first frame on a first transmission path in
a loop to a next, second subscriber in each instance in
accordance with a predefined transmission direction;

additionally transmitting, from the first subscriber, the
information in a second frame having the same length and same
structure as the first frame;

transmitting the second frame on a second transmission
path to a, third subscriber that is after the second subscriber, the
second transmission path and the second frame skipping the
second subscriber; and

performing an assessment in dependence upon at least
one criterion corresponding to one of the information, the
predefined length, and the structure, wherein the assessment
includes at least partially comparing at least one of the
information, the predefined length and the predefined structure
of the first frame to corresponding at least one of the
information, the predefined length and the predefined structure
of the second frame, and determining a presence of an error if
the at least partial comparison results in a deviation.

(emphasis added).

Appeal 2009-006179
Application 10/444,468

3
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-5, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over by Son (US Pub. 2002/0027877 A1, Mar. 7, 2002) and
Gandhi (US 6,836,514 B2, Dec. 28, 2004).
2. Claims 7, 8, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Son
and Davis (US 4,354,229, Oct. 12, 1982).
3. Claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Son and
Semaan (US Pub. 2002/0112077 A1, Aug. 15, 2002).

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, we have
determined that the following issue is dispositive in this appeal:
Under §103, did the Examiner err in determining that the cited
references would have taught or suggested the comparison of two data
frames to determine the presence of an error where each of the two data
frames contained identical information at the time of transmission, within
the meaning of independent claims 1 and 18?

FACTUAL FINDINGS
1. Gandhi is relied upon by the Examiner to teach or suggest “at
least partially comparing at least one of the information, the predefined
length and the predefined structure of the first frame to corresponding at
least one of the information, the predefined length and the predefined
structure of the second frame and determining a presence of an error if the at
least partial comparison results in a deviation.” (Ans. 4).

Appeal 2009-006179
Application 10/444,468

4
2. Gandhi is directed to a digital video decoding method that
detects candidate errors within the picture start code, picture header, and
picture timestamp information when a compressed digital video bitstream is
transmitted over a network. (Abstract; col. 1, ll. 14-30).
3. Gandhi discloses “detecting changes in the one or more fields
of the frame overhead information by comparing the one or more fields to a
corresponding one or more fields of a previous frame overhead
information.” (Col. 13, ll. 56-63).
4. Gandhi utilizes “past detection history of the correctness of
previously received frames in determining the correctness of a current
frame.” (Col. 13, ll. 61-63) (emphasis added).

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the cited references, notably Gandhi, (FF 1) fails
to teach or suggest “any comparison of the identical information, identical
length or identical structure of two identical data frames, let alone any
comparison of two identical data frames sent to two different recipients.”
(App. Br. 7).
In response, the Examiner contends that the argued “identical data
frames” are not recited in the claims. (Ans. 12).
However, we conclude that “the information” recited multiple times in
the body of claim 1 derives positive antecedent basis from the “information”
recited in the claim preamble. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the
claim language requires a comparison of two data frames that were identical
Appeal 2009-006179
Application 10/444,468

5
data frames at the time of transmission from the first subscriber to each of
the second and third subscribers via first and second transmission paths,
respectively. (App. Br. 7, Reply Br. 3-4; see claim 1).
We note that Appellants’ claimed invention detects the presence of an
error if a comparison of at least one of the information, the predefined
length, and the predefined structure of the two frames received by the second
and third subscribers results in a deviation. (Claim 1).
We agree with the Examiner that the primary Son reference teaches or
suggests data transmission of two duplicate data packets from a first node to
second and third nodes respectively. (See Son e.g., Fig. 4A; Ans. 4, 13).
However, as acknowledged by the Examiner (Ans. 4), Son does not
teach or suggest:
at least partially comparing at least one of the
information, the predefined length and the predefined structure
of the first frame to corresponding at least one of the
information, the predefined length and the predefined structure
of the second frame, and determining a presence of an error if
the at least partial comparison results in a deviation.

(Claim 1).
In contrast to the claimed invention, Son determines whether a fault
exists when a packet does not exist or arrive within a certain time (paras.
[0036-0037]), or by comparison of a received packet with a reference packet
value (para. [0038]). Thus, we agree that Son does not compare two
received packets (or frames) that were identical at the time of transmission
to detect a network transmission error.
Appeal 2009-006179
Application 10/444,468

6
While the Examiner looks to the secondary Gandhi reference to
provide the teachings missing from Son, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner’s reliance upon Gandhi is misplaced.
We observe that Gandhi is directed to a digital video decoding method
that detects candidate errors within the picture start code, picture header, and
picture timestamp information when a compressed digital video bitstream is
transmitted over a network. (FF 2). The Examiner relies on Gandhi’s
teaching of “detecting changes in the one or more fields of the frame
overhead information by comparing the one or more fields to a
corresponding one or more fields of a previous frame[s’] overhead
information.” (FF 3; see also Ans. 4, 13).
Based upon our review of the record, we do not find Gandhi teaches
or suggests even partially comparing two frames, that when initially
transmitted, contained the identical information, and had the same length
and structure, within the meaning of independent claims 1 and 18.
We note that video frames vary from frame to frame according to the
changing video content. Even if the video content does not change from
frame to frame (e.g., a still picture), the overhead information (picture start
code (PSC) and picture header and other information) changes from frame to
frame. (See col. 2, l. 63 through col. 3, l. 25).
We find Gandhi is directed primarily to detecting whether or not the
picture start code (PSC) and/or picture header of a frame has been corrupted.
(Col. 3, ll. 24-41). The PSC delineates the start of a new video frame and
provides a resynchronization marker within the bitstream in the event of bit
errors. (Col. 3, ll. 11-17). In addition, “[t]he picture header, which often
follows the picture start code, contains vital information about the frame
Appeal 2009-006179
Application 10/444,468

7
such as the timestamp, type, size, coding modes, quantization value, and
miscellaneous administrative information required to correctly decode a
frame.” (Col. 3, ll. 41-45).
The Examiner relied on Gandhi’s teaching of “detecting changes in
the one or more fields of the frame overhead information by comparing the
one or more fields to a corresponding one or more fields of a previous frame
overhead information.” (FF 3; see Ans. 4, 13). However, we particularly
note that the portion of Gandhi relied on by the Examiner (Col. 13, ll. 56-63;
Ans. 4, 13) also indicates that the past detection history of the correctness of
previously received frames is used in determining the correctness of a
current frame. (FF 4).
Because Gandhi is directed to comparing successive video frames that
we find were not identical at the time of transmission, we agree with
Appellants that the cited combination of Son and Gandhi does not teach nor
fairly suggest:
at least partially comparing at least one of the
information, the predefined length and the predefined structure
of the first frame to corresponding at least one of the
information, the predefined length and the predefined structure
of the second frame, and determining a presence of an error if
the at least partial comparison results in a deviation.

(Independent claims 1 and 18).
For the aforementioned reasons, we find a gap in the collective
teachings of the cited references. While we agree with the Examiner that at
least some aspects of the claimed invention were known in the art (Ans. 13),
on this record we are unable to affirm the Examiner because neither Son nor
Gandhi fairly teaches or suggests detecting a network error by comparing at
Appeal 2009-006179
Application 10/444,468

8
least portions of two received frames, sent over different network paths,
where the frames were identical at the time of transmission, within the
meaning of independent claims 1 and 18.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
independent claims 1 and 18 and also associated dependent claims 2-5, 9,
10, 12, 13, and 16-20. We note that the Examiner relied on the secondary
references Davis and Semaan to reject dependent claims 7, 8, 11, 14, and 15.
We do not find, nor has the Examiner established, that either of these
references cures the admitted deficiencies of Son.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejections.

ORDER
REVERSED

pgc

KENYON & KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK NY 10004