Ex Parte Hattori et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2016

13216375 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/216,375 08/24/2011 Shinobu Hattori 4002-0490 3998
60803 7590 12/14/2016
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
1765 Greensboro Station Place
Suite 320
Tysons Corner, VA 22102
EXAMINER
ZHOU, ZHIHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/14/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHINOBU HATTORI and NAOHISA KITAZATO
Appeal 2015-008106
Application 13/216,3751
Technology Center 2400
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, HUNG H. BUI, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Office Action rejecting claims 1—15, 17, 18, and 20, which
are all the claims pending on appeal. Claims 16 and 19 have been cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Sony Corporation.
App. Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed April 29, 2015
(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed September 8, 2015 (“Reply Br.”);
Examiner’s Answer mailed July 7, 2015 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action
mailed December 4, 2014 (“Final Act.”); and original Specification filed
August 24, 2011 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2015-008106
Application 13/216,375
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a broadcasting system, shown in
Figure 3, for broadcasting a digital television program. Spec. 17:3—12.
Appellants’ Figure 3 shows a broadcasting system, as reproduced below:
Appellants’ Figure 3 shows a broadcasting system
As shown in Appellants’ Figure 3, Appellants’ broadcasting system
includes: (1) broadcasting apparatus 31 to transmit a digital TV signal and
trigger information embedded in or multiplexed with an encoded
audio/video stream, and (2) receiving apparatus 60 to process the encoded
audio/video stream.
A broadcasting apparatus 31 is shown, for example, in Figure 4, as
reproduced below:
43
41
Appellants’ Figure 4 shows a broadcasting apparatus.
2
Appeal 2015-008106
Application 13/216,375
As shown in Figure 4, Appellants’ broadcasting apparatus 31 includes
several generic components such as: (1) trigger generating portion 41 to
generate trigger information in time (sync) with an encoded video stream;
(2) video encoding portion 42 to encode the video stream; (3) audio
encoding portion 43 to encode an audio stream; (4) multiplexing portion 44
to multiplex the encoded video stream, the encoded audio stream, and
“trigger information” into a transport stream (TS) in a particular format of
digital TV signal suitable for network delivery, via sending portion 45.
Spec. 19:15—21:14. According to Appellants, the “trigger information” is
used as a command to instruct acquisition, execution, or termination of an
application program for data broadcasting, and can be embedded in an
encoded video stream, via video encoding portion 42, or alternatively,
multiplexed with encoded video stream, via multiplexing portion 44. Spec.
18:5-12,21:3-18.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is
illustrative of Appellants’ invention shown in Figure 4, and is reproduced
with disputed limitations emphasized below:
1. A transmitting apparatus transmitting contents,
comprising:
a trigger information generating section configured to
generate trigger information on control for an application
program which is executed in conjunction with the contents
in a receiving apparatus;
an encoding section configured to encode the contents to
generate an encoded stream;
a multiplexing section configured to multiplex the
encoded stream to generate a multiplexed stream; and
3
Appeal 2015-008106
Application 13/216,375
a sending section configured to send the multiplexed
stream, wherein
[1] the trigger information is sent by carrying out
the encoding with the contents by the encoding section to
embed the trigger information in the encoded stream, and
[2] the trigger information is also sent by
carrying out the multiplexing with the trigger information
and with the encoded stream having the trigger
information already embedded therein,
[3] the multiplexing being carried out by the
multiplexing section to multiplex the trigger information,
which has not been encoded, into the multiplexed stream
along with the encoded stream having the trigger
information already embedded therein, and
wherein the trigger information generating section, the
encoding section, the multiplexing section, and the sending
section are each implemented via at least one processor.
App. Br. 28 (Claims App.) (brackets added).
Examiner’s Rejections and References
(1) Claims 1, 2, 6—9, 13—15, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wiklund (US 2004/0179553 Al;
published Sept. 16, 2004) and Dakss et al. (US 2006/0031914 Al; published
Feb. 9, 2006; “Dakss”). Final Act. 2—8; Ans. 2—8.
(2) Claims 3 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wiklund, Dakss, and Lei et al. (US 7,650,036 B2;
issued Jan. 19, 2010; “Lei”). Final Act. 8—9; Ans. 9.
(3) Claims 4 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wiklund, Dakss, and Leuratti et al. (EP 1 487 214
Al; published Dec. 15, 2004; “Leuratti”). Final Act. 9-10; Ans. 10-11.
4
Appeal 2015-008106
Application 13/216,375
(4) Claims 5 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wiklund, Dakss, and Patel et al. (US 2011/0093900
Al; published Apr. 21, 2011; “Patel”). Final Act. 10—12; Ans. 11—13.
ISSUES
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issues presented on
appeal are (1) whether the combination of Wiklund and Dakss teaches or
suggests ah the limitations of Appellants’ claimed invention, and (2)
whether the Examiner’s combination of Wiklund and Dakss is supported by
sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning. App. Br. 18—22; Reply Br.
4-5.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 2, 6—9, 13—15, 17, 18, and20
In support of the obviousness rejection of claim 1, the Examiner finds
Wiklund teaches a broadcasting system comprising ah the claimed
components, for example:
a transmitting apparatus transmitting contents (FIG. 1 - remote
transmitting means 101); and a receiving apparatus receiving the
contents transmitted thereto (FIG. 1 - data localization means
103), wherein the transmitting apparatus includes a trigger
information generating section configured to generate trigger
information on control for an application program which is
executed in conjunction with the contents in a receiving
apparatus (FIG. 1 - automation system 108; [0083]), an encoding
section configured to encode the contents to generate an encoded
stream (FIG. 1 - encoder 106; [0081]), a multiplexing section
configured to multiplex the encoded stream to generate a
multiplexed stream (FIG. 1 - multiplexer 107; [0081]), and a
sending section configured to send the multiplexed stream
5
Appeal 2015-008106
Application 13/216,375
([0080] and [0084]), in which the trigger information is sent by
carrying out the multiplexing with the encoded stream by the
multiplexing section to multiplex the trigger information ....
Ans. 3^4 (citing Wiklund ^fl[ 80-84, Fig. 1).
The Examiner acknowledges Wiklund teaches “trigger information”
multiplexed prior to transmission, but does not explicitly teach the
alternative transmission of “trigger information,” i.e., “trigger information”
embedded into the content stream, via encoding section. Ans. 4. The
Examiner then relies on Dakss for teaching the use of “trigger information”
embedded as part of content stream to support the conclusion of
obviousness. Ans. 5 (citing Dakss ^fl[ 22, 23, 27, 29, and 31).
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1
because Dakss’s teaching of “encoding a synchronization trigger along with
content” and Wiklund’s “multiplexing of trigger information with digital
data streams” are “separate and distinct ways of including [a] trigger
information [that] cannot simply be combined to do both.” App. Br. 18—20;
Reply Br. 4—5. In particular, Appellants argue “the synchronization trigger
in Dakss is very different than [sic] both the triggering information of
Wiklund and the trigger information of the claimed invention” because
Wiklund’s triggering information is never encoded with contents of the
digital data streams” or Wiklund’s “encoded digital data streams” do not
have any trigger information embedded therewith.” App. Br. 20; Reply Br.
5. According to Appellants,
Dakss’s “synchronization trigger” and Wiklund’s “triggering
information” are so different that they cannot be interchanged.
App. Br. 21; Reply Br. 5.
6
Appeal 2015-008106
Application 13/216,375
Appellants also argue:
even if one of ordinary skill in the art were to combine the
teachings of Wiklund with the teaching of Dakss, the resultant
“synchronization trigger” that is embedded into the content
element by encoding (as taught by Dakss) is not the same trigger
or trigger information as the “triggering information” that is
multiplexed with digital data streams (as taught by Wiklund).
Therefore, Wiklund in view of Dakss clearly does not teach that
the same trigger information is sent by (1) encoding with the
trigger information with the contents to generate an encoded
stream and also (2) multiplexing the trigger information with the
encoded stream that already has the trigger information
embedded therein.
App. Br. 21 (emphasis in original).
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. Rather, we find the
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants’ arguments
supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 13—20. Therefore, we
adopt the Examiner’s findings and explanations provided therein. Id. For
additional emphasis, we note “trigger information” in the context of a
broadcasting system can only be transmitted along with a digital broadcast
signal in two ways: (1) embedded in an encoded video stream, as disclosed
by Dakss (see Dakss ]Hf 8, 22 (“synchronization triggers are embedded into a
content element, via data inserter 112”)), or alternatively, (2) multiplexed
with the encoded video stream into a multiplexed stream, as disclosed by
Wiklund (see Wiklund ]Hf 5—6, 25, Fig. 1). These techniques are considered
interchangeable and are well-known techniques used to transmit “trigger
information” as part of a digital broadcast signal as recognized by the
Examiner. Ans. 19. Appellants’ Specification further confirms the
interchangeability of these two techniques as follows:
7
Appeal 2015-008106
Application 13/216,375
the broadcasting apparatus 31 transmits trigger information as a
command to instruct acquisition or execution of the contents for
the data broadcasting which is executed in conjunction with a
program or a CM in the form of being contained in the digital
television broadcasting signal. Specifically, the trigger
information is transmitted in the form of being embedded in an
encoded video stream or in the form of being multiplexed with
the encoded video stream or the like.
Spec. 18:5—12, 21:3—18 (emphasis added).
Because these are interchangeable and well-known techniques used to
transmit “trigger information” as part of a digital broadcast signal, we agree
with the Examiner that any modification of Wiklund’s digital transmission
system to further embed “trigger information” as part of an encoded video
stream as disclosed by Dakss would have been obvious as a use of a known
technique to improve a similar broadcasting system in the same way to
obtain predictable results. Ans. 18—19; see KSR Ini 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 415—16 (2007) (“[A] combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.”). Likewise, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner failed to articulate sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning
to modify Wiklund’s digital transmission system to further embed “trigger
information” as part of an encoded video stream as disclosed by Dakss. See
Final Act. 5; Ans. 6, 16—17; see also In re Cree, 818 F.3d 694, 702, n.3
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (appellants’ hindsight argument is of no moment where the
Examiner provides a sufficient, non-hindsight reason to combine the
references).
Lastly, we note Appellants have not presented sufficient evidence or
persuasive argument that modifying Wiklund’s digital transmission system
to further embed “trigger information” as part of an encoded video stream as
8
Appeal 2015-008106
Application 13/216,375
disclosed by Dakss would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for
one of ordinary skill in the art” or would have “represented an unobvious
step over the prior art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418^119). Nor
have Appellants provided objective evidence of secondary considerations,
which our reviewing court guides “operates as a beneficial check on
hindsight.” Cheese Systems, Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Systems,
725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
With respect to independent claims 6—8 and 13—15 and dependent
claims 2, 9, 17, 18, and 20, Appellants reiterate the same arguments
presented against claim 1. App. Br. 22. For the same reasons discussed, we
also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 2, 6—9, 13—15,
17, 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
With respect to remaining dependent claims 3—5 and 10-13,
Appellants reiterate the same arguments presented against claim 1. App. Br.
22—26. For the same reasons discussed, we also sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 3—5 and 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
9
Appeal 2015-008106
Application 13/216,375
CONCLUSION3
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—15, 17, 18, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—15,
17, 18, and 20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
3 In the event of further prosecution, we suggest the Examiner consider
rejecting claims 1—15, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
for lack of support. For example, Appellants’ original Specification only
describes transmitting “trigger information” embedded in an encoded video
stream or multiplexed with the encoded video stream. Spec. 18:5—12, 21:3—
18. Nowhere in Appellants’ original Specification is there any support for
Appellants’ claimed “trigger information” being both (1) “embedded in an
encoded video stream” and (2) “multiplexed with the encoded video
stream,” as recited in each of Appellants’ independent claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 13,
14, and 15.
10