Ex Parte Herlein

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2016

13138262 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 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.
13/138,262 07/26/2011 Gregory Charles Herlein PU090009 1094
24498 7590 11/30/2016
Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations
THOMSON Licensing LLC
4 Research Way
3rd Floor
Princeton, NJ 08543
EXAMINER
TRAN, TRANG U
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2016 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):
uspto@technicolor.com
pat. verlangieri @ technicolor.com
russell. smith @ technicolor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREGORY CHARLES HERLEIN1
Appeal 2016-002266
Application 13/138,262
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 4—8, and 10-15. Claims 2, 3, 9, and 16 have been canceled.
Br. 15—17. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies THOMSON LICENSING as the real party in interest.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-002266
Application 13/138,262
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to “improving the tuning
times of receivers such as set-top boxes.” Spec. 1. According to the
Specification, a received Session Description Protocol (SDP) is parsed to
obtain audio and video codec parameters. Spec. 197. “In various
embodiments of the present invention, the additional codec information
enables the immediate initialization of the decoder chips, which reduces the
tuning time in receivers.” Spec. 97.
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed subject matter on appeal and
is reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics'.
1. A method, comprising the steps of:
providing, with content, at least one of audio and video codec
parameter information for said content, which enables the immediate
initialization of a decoder to begin decoding said content without having to
parse said content to determine at least one of audio and video codec
parameter information.
The Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 1, 4—6, 8, 10-12, 14, and 15 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Hannuksela et al. (US 7,826,536
B2; Nov. 2, 2010) (“Hannuksela”). Final Act. 3—5.
2. Claims 7 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hannuksela. Final Act. 5—6.
2
Appeal 2016-002266
Application 13/138,262
Issue on Appeal1
Did the Examiner err in finding Hannuksela discloses, inter alia,
“providing, with content, at least one of audio and video codec parameter
information for said content,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS2 3
Hannuksela is directed to a “system enabling minimization of tune-in
delay.” Hannuksela, Abstract. Hannuksela describes tune-in delay as the
time between the start of reception of a broadcast signal and the start of
media rendering. Hannuksela, col. 1,11. 64—65. According to Hannuksela,
an issue contributing to tune-in delay is that existing content encoders and IP
(Internet protocol) encapsulators “lack a real-time feedback link that allows
the IP encapsulator to govern the exact location of instantaneous decoding
refresh (IDR) pictures in an encoded bit stream.” Hannuksela, col. 1,11. 60-
63. Hannuksela discloses that tune-in delay is reduced if an IDR picture is
the first picture in a decoding order in each MPE-FEC (multi-protocol
encapsulated forward error correction) frame. Hannuksela, col. 2,11. 9—13.
2 We only address this issue, which is dispositive. We do not address
additional issues raised by Appellant’s arguments.
3 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
April 15, 2015 (“Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed on July 7, 2014
(“Ans.”); and the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed on
September 26, 2013, from which this Appeal is taken.
3
Appeal 2016-002266
Application 13/138,262
Figure 2 of Hannuksela is illustrative and is reproduced below:
Figure 2 of Hannuksela is a block diagram of Hannuksela’s IP data casting
system. Hannuksela, col. 2,11. 59—61. Hannuksela discloses a source video
signal is encoded into two bit streams—a decoder refresh bitstream and a
coded media bitstream—by content encoder (201). Hannuksela, col. 6,
11. 24—35. The decoder refresh bitstream contains, inter alia, IDR pictures.
Hannuksela, col. 6,11. 26—27. As shown, server (203) encapsulates both the
decoder refresh bitstream and the coded media bitstream into RTP (Real­
time Transport Protocol) packet streams. Hannuksela, col. 7,11. 5—11. To
allow for the correspondence between samples in the RTP packet stream
(i.e., coded media content) and the decoder refresh RTP packet stream, the
server (203) may initialize an RTP timestamp (part of the RTP payload
format) to an equal offset for both of the streams. Hannuksela, col. 7,11. 14—
16. Additionally, Hannuksela discloses RTCP (RTP Control Protocol)
sender reports are periodically transmitted which contain information on the
relation of RTP timestamps. Hannuksela, col. 7,11. 19—21.
The Examiner finds the RTCP sender reports and RTP timestamp
anticipate the claimed audio and video codec parameter information. Final
4
Appeal 2016-002266
Application 13/138,262
Act. 2—3. In support of this finding, the Examiner points to Hannuksela’s
disclosure that
If an equal offset is not used [(i.e., a timestamp for the decoder
refresh RTP packet stream and the coded media bit RTP packet
stream)], then the IP encapsulator must map the packets to the
same timeline according to the RTCP sender reports rather than
directly using the RTP timestamp to find the relation individual
frames of the RTP packet stream and decoder refresh packet
stream.
Ans. 7 (quoting Hannuksela, col. 7,11. 17—26) (emphasis omitted). Further,
the Examiner explains the decoder refresh stream may also contain sequence
and Group of Picture (GOP) headers. Ans. 6—7 (citing Hannuksela, col. 3,
11. 26—29). However, alternately, the Examiner notes:
When both the decoder refresh bit stream and coded media bit
stream are transferred to server 203, they may be encapsulated to
the same file . .. and a new flag, sync_sample_track, in the track
header box may be specified for the decoder refresh stream
indicating that it contains only decoder refresh points, referred to
as sync samples in the ISO base media file format terminology.
Ans. 7 (quoting Hannuksela, col. 7,11. 40-52) (emphases altered). From this
passage of Hannuksela, the Examiner finds the sync_sample_track in the
track header box anticipates the claimed “providing, with content, at least
one of audio and video codec parameter information.” Ans. 7.
Appellant concedes that Hannuksela may provide an alternate solution
to providing a reduced tuning time. Br. 11. However, Appellant contends
Hannuksela’s approach does not provide at least one of audio and video
codec parameter information with content to realize a reduced tuning time.
Br. 11. Instead, Appellant asserts Hannuksela relies on creating a time-
sliced multi-protocol encapsulation stream wherein an IDR (instantaneous
5
Appeal 2016-002266
Application 13/138,262
decoding refresh) picture is the first picture in a decoding order in each
MPE-FEC frame. Br. 11.
We find Appellant’s argument persuasive of Examiner error. We find
the Examiner has not sufficiently explained or provided sufficient,
persuasive technical reasoning to support the finding that the relied upon
portions of Hannuksela anticipate “providing, with content, at least one of
audio and video codec parameter information for said content,” as recited in
claim 1.
For the reasons discussed supra, and on the record before us, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. For similar
reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 8
and 15, which recite similar limitations. Additionally, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 4—7 and 10—14, which depend therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4—8, and 10—
15.
REVERSED
6