Ex Parte Huang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2016

13155762 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 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.
13/155,762 06/08/2011 Xiaolong Huang 110403 3657
23696 7590 12/21/2016
OTTAT mMM TNmRPORATFD
EXAMINER
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
ELFERVIG, TAYLOR A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2016 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XIAOLONG HUANG, VIJAYALAKSHMI R. RAVEENDRAN,
XUN LUO, PHANIKUMAR K. BHAMIDIPATI, and SOHAM V. SHETH
Appeal 2014-009550
Application 13/155,762
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA, II, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellants request rehearing of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s
(“Board”) Decision mailed September 26, 2016 (“Decision”), in which we
reversed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 9, 16, 19, 24, 31, 34, 46,
49, and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Gorokhov (US 2010/0091893
Al; published Apr. 15, 2010) and Goldfein et al. (US 2013/0054819 Al;
published Feb. 28, 2013) (“Goldfein”); reversed the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 2, 3, 17, 18, 32, 33, 47, and 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Gorokhov, Goldfein, and Yao Wang et al., Multiple Description Coding for
Video Delivery, 93(1) Proceedings of the IEEE, 57—70 (Jan. 2005)
(“Wang”); reversed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5—8, 20-23, 35—39,
Appeal 2014-009550
Application 13/155,762
50-53, 61, and 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Gorokhov, Goldfein,
and Aaron et al. (US 2009/0327918 Al; published Dec. 31, 2009)
(“Aaron”); reversed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 25, 40, and 55
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Gorokhov, Goldfein, and Klassen et al.
(US 2002/0080726 Al; published June 27, 2002) (“Klassen”); reversed the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 61 and 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Lee, Goldfein, and Aaron; affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11,
12, 14, 15, 26, 27, 29, 30, 41, 42, 44, 45, 56, 57, 59, and 60 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Gorokhov, Wang, and Goldfein; and affirmed the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 28, 43, and 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Gorokhov, Wang, Goldfein, and Apostolopoulos et al.
(US 2003/0007515 Al; published Jan. 9, 2003) (“Apostolopoulos”).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend our Decision’s basis for affirmance that “wherein
the feedback information comprises an information element corresponding
to a relationship between at least two of the plurality of paths,” as recited in
claim 11, “is quite different from any of the arguments presented by the
Examiner in the Office Actions or in the Examiner’s Answer” (Request 6)
and “introduced a discussion about a different passage in Wang relating to
minimizing the expected distortion of a reconstructed video, which depends
on the loss characteristics of individual paths as well as path correlation”
(Request 7). Appellants contend, therefore, our affirmance constitutes a new
ground of rejection. Id. at 2, 7.
Appellants contend that several portions of the Decision change the
thrust of the Examiner’s rejection. Request 5—7 (citing, e.g., Decision 7—8;
2
Appeal 2014-009550
Application 13/155,762
Ans. 11). Upon careful consideration of Appellants’ contention, we
conclude that those portions of the analysis merely explain with greater
clarity the basis for the Examiner’s rejections involving the Wang reference.
We further note that the Examiner’s articulated reasoning and factual
underpinnings are sufficient to sustain the rejections.
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner found “Wang teaches that
the receiver monitors path parameters (received information) and sends back
feedback with such information to the sender.” Final Act. 20 (citing Wang,
Fig. 5; section IV(A)—General System Architecture). The Examiner,
therefore, found that Wang’s information regarding the monitored path
parameters teaches or suggests “wherein the feedback information comprises
an information element corresponding to a relationship between at least two
of the plurality of paths.” Final Act. 20. As we explained in our Decision,
Wang teaches that the path parameters are used for generating M multiple
packetized bit-streams and distributing packets from sub-streams among K
paths. Decision 7 (citing Wang 66 (i.e., Wang, section IV(A), General
System Architecture)). As we further explained, Wang teaches that path
selection (e.g., distributing the packets among the K paths) should try to
minimize the expected distortion of reconstructed video and that minimizing
the expected distortion depends on the loss characteristics of the individual
paths as well as path correlation. Id. at 7—8. “Path correlation” refers to
shared links among the chosen paths. See Wang, section IV(A), General
System Architecture, last two sentences (“Similarly, path selection should try
to minimize the expected distortion of reconstructed video, which depends
on the loss characteristics of individual paths as well as path correlation.
Several papers have examined the effect of shared links among the chosen
3
Appeal 2014-009550
Application 13/155,762
paths on the end-to-end video quality” (internal citations omitted)). One of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the path parameters for a
particular shared link would be the same for each of the chosen paths of the
particular shared link. As such, we were not persuaded the Examiner erred
by finding that Wang’s path parameters, included in the feedback
information, teach or suggest that the feedback information comprises an
information element corresponding to a relationship between at least two of
the plurality of paths, as required by claim 11. Decision 8.
Therefore, we relied upon the same element of Wang as did the
Examiner in the Final Office Action to affirm the rejection, and in doing so,
we did not change the thrust of the rejection. As such, we find no merit in
Appellants’ argument that our affirmance constitutes a new ground of
rejection. Accordingly, we maintain our initial position that the Examiner
did not err by finding Wang teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
Decision 8.
Appellants further contend that the Board overlooked or
misapprehended Appellants’ contention regarding the combination of
Gorokhov, Wang, and Goldfein being improper. Request 9-11. In
particular, Appellants reiterate arguments made in the Appeal Brief and
contend “there is no reason to modify the disclosure of Gorokhov to utilize
feedback corresponding to a relationship between different paths, because
the relationship between the different paths would not be useful or
meaningful” and “because there is nothing in Gorokhov to imply any form
of relationship between the different UEs receiving the CoMP transmissions,
there would be no manner for such a relationship between paths even to be
established.” Request 10—11. Appellants further contend:
4
Appeal 2014-009550
Application 13/155,762
Similarly, the modification of the Wang reference with the
disclosures of Goldfein is improper, and does not make up for
the deficiencies of the Gorokhov reference. That is, Goldfein
discloses feedback of synchronization (SYN) packets, where the
sender of the feedback inserts a timestamp on the SYN packets.
A receiver of the feedback calculates the difference between that
sender’s timestamp and a timestamp of the receiver of the
feedback upon receipt of the SYN packet. Goldfein then
discloses the change of a transmission rate based this timestamp
differential. Nothing in Goldfein relates in any way to multiple
paths. There is no reason to combine Goldfein’s transmission
rate control of a single path of transmission with Wang’s
discussion of multipath transmission of an MDC stream. Nor is
there any indication that the SYN packet in Goldfein relates to a
relationship between at least two of a plurality of paths.
Request 11.
As we noted in our Decision, in the Appeal Brief, Appellants argued
that the combination of Gorokhov, Wang, and Goldfein is improper “[f]or
substantially the same reasons given above with respect to Independent
Claim 1.” Decision 8 (quoting App. Br. 21). Claim 1 was rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combination of Gorokhov and Goldfein
(Final Act. 6) and Appellants’ arguments were directed solely to the
combination of Gorokhov and Goldfein. App. Br. 15—16. Thus, Appellants’
arguments with respect to the combinability of Gorokhov, Goldfein, and
Wang, did not raise any issue with respect to Wang. As such, we disagree
that we misapprehended or overlooked Appellants’ contentions regarding
Wang as these contentions are made for the first time in the Request for
Reconsideration. Rather, Appellants’ contentions are untimely as they
constitute new arguments that could have been raised during the Appeal.
Except in certain situations, which, because we declined to designate
our affirmance as a new ground of rejection, are not applicable here,
5
Appeal 2014-009550
Application 13/155,762
arguments not raised, and evidence not relied upon previously, are not
permitted in the request for rehearing. 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1). Appellants
do not show good cause as to why the argument was not presented in the
Briefs, and, thus, it is waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.52.
Further, a request for rehearing must state with particularity the points
believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board. 37
C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(l)-(4). Appellants fail to identify, with particularity, any
argument believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked. Instead,
Appellants generally state “the Board misinterpreted the Appellant’s full
argument on this ground, and accordingly failed to give due consideration to
the impropriety of this combination of references.” Request 2.
To the extent Appellants’ contentions address the arguments presented
in the Briefs, we have reviewed our Decision in light thereof and are
unpersuaded of any error.
DECISION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we grant Appellants’ Request for
Rehearing to the extent of reconsidering our decision, but we deny
Appellants’ request with respect to making any change thereto.
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).
REHEARING DENIED
6