Ex Parte Hung

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 18, 2010

10434302 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 18, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SZEPO ROBERT HUNG
____________

Appeal 2009-003479
Application 10/434,302
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: March 18, 2010
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, and MARC
S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 1-3, 5-24, and 26-42, which are all of the pending claims. Claims 4
and 25 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2009-003479
Application 10/434,302

2
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief (filed February 15, 2008), the Answer (mailed
May 16, 2008), and the Reply Brief (filed June 6, 2008) for the respective
details. Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to the broadcasting of information that
has been compressed using the MPEG-4 standard. Visual object sequence
(VOS) data that has been compressed according to the MPEG-4 standard is
packetized into an elementary stream (ES). For each VOS header in the ES,
a first plurality of random access units (RAUs) is generated, each RAU
including a visual object (VO) header, a video object layer (VOL) header,
and an Intra type VOP (I-VOP) header. After associating a second plurality
of video object planes (VOPs) with each VO-VOL header, the ES is
transmitted. (See generally Spec. 5:15–6:5).

Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:

1. A method for broadcasting information compressed using the
Moving Pictures Expert Group (MPEG)-4 standard, the method comprising:
packetizing MPEG-4 compressed visual object sequence (VOS) data
into an elementary stream (ES);
for each VOS header in the ES, generating a first plurality of random
access units (RAUs), each RAU including a visual object (VO) header, a
video object layer (VOL) header, and an Intra type VOP (I-VOP) header;
associating a second plurality of video object planes (VOPs) with each
Appeal 2009-003479
Application 10/434,302

3
VO-VOL header; and,
transmitting the ES.

The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art references:
Nagumo US 6,608,935 B2 Aug. 19, 2003
(filed Jun. 24, 1999)
Gentric US 6,888,895 B2 May 3, 2005
(filed Feb. 26, 2002)
Kikuchi US 7,010,032 B1 Mar. 7, 2006
(filed Mar.10, 2000)

Claims 1-3, 5-24, and 26-42, all of the appealed claims stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gentric in view of
Nagumo and Kikuchi.1

ISSUES
The pivotal issues before us are whether the Examiner properly
a) determined that the collective video encoding teachings of
Gentric, Nagumo, and Kikuchi provide for the generation of random access
units (RAUs) which include either visual object (VO), video object layer
(VOL) and Intra type VOP (I-VOP) headers or initial object descriptors
(IODs), object descriptors (ODs) and binary format scene descriptors
(BIFS), and
b) if so, provided an articulated line of reasoning with a rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness for the
proposed combination of Gentric, Nagumo, and Kikuchi.

1 Dependent claims 29 and 30 are presently ultimately dependent on
canceled claim 25.
Appeal 2009-003479
Application 10/434,302

4

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following relevant findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence:
1. Appellant’s disclosure (Spec. 2:22-3:4) discusses the two
methods defined in the industry standard ISO/IEC13818-1 for carrying
MPEG-4 programs in an MPEG-2 system. In the first method, MPEG-4 is
packetized as a Packetized Elementary Stream (PES) and encapsulated into
an MPEG-2 transport stream with each video object plane (VOP)
encapsulated within one PES packet.
2. In the second method for carrying an MPEG-4 program in an
MPEG-2 transport system, both the video/audio and the MPEG-4 system
information such as Initial object descriptors, object descriptors, and scene
descriptors are carried. (Spec. 3:5-9).
3. Gentric discloses (Fig. 1, col. 3, ll. 4-10 and 34-45) an MPEG-4
video data encoding system which includes an Access Unit layer 23 which
adapts elementary stream (ES) data for communication and provides, timing,
synchronization, and random access information.
4. Gentric further discloses (Fig. 2, col. 3, ll. 33-67 and col. 3, ll.
33-59) that improved error resilience can be provided by partitioning the
video data and spreading the data across several synch layer (SL) packets.
5. Gentric also discloses (Fig. 1) the use of MPEG-4 syntax
elements such as object descriptors and scene descriptors.
6. Nagumo discloses (Fig. 7, col. 23, ll. 5-20 and col. 25, ll. 10-
67) an MPEG-4 encoding system and the associating of first and second
video planes with video object (VO) and video object layer (VOL) headers.
Appeal 2009-003479
Application 10/434,302

5
7. Kikuchi discloses (Figs. 2 and 4, col. 5, ll.17-67) a moving
image coding system which uses access unit generators (31a-31e) to
partition video code strings into access units.
8. Kikuchi further discloses (col. 6, ll. 1-36) that error resilience
can be improved by partitioning a video data stream across several packets.
9. Kikuchi also discloses (col. 14, ll. 36-67) the identification of
random access points by designating, by setting a bit flag, those packets that
have an I-VOP header.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966) (stating that 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 leads to three basic factual inquiries: the scope and content of the prior
art, the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, and the
level of ordinary skill in the art). Furthermore,
“there must be some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness” . . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek
out precise teachings directed to the specific subject
matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take
account of the inferences and creative steps that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In
re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).

Appeal 2009-003479
Application 10/434,302

6

ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1, 20, 22, and 31
Appellant’s arguments initially focus on the alleged deficiency of any
of the applied references in disclosing the claimed generating of random
access units (RAUs), where each RAU includes visual object (VO), video
object layer (VOL), and an Intra type VOP (I-VOP) headers. In particular,
Appellant contends (App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 2-3) that Kikuchi, relied
upon by the Examiner as providing a detailed teaching of designating
random access points in a video stream by utilizing I-VOP headers, is not
creating any type of independent type of RAU subcomponents. According
to Appellant, Kikuchi is merely modifying an RTP packet by setting the M
bit in the RTP header that contains an I-VOP header.
We do not agree with Appellant. As discussed by the Examiner (Ans.
23-26), both Gentric (FF 4) and Kikuchi (FF 8) disclose the partitioning of
video programs across several packets. Further, Gentric, which discusses
the use of the MPEG-4, VO, VOL, and I-VOP coding header syntax,
discloses (FF 3) the manipulation of access units as well as the provision of
random access information in the partitioned video programs. Similarly,
Kikuchi discloses (FF 7) the use of access unit generators which separate
input code strings into access units and, further (FF 9), can identify random
access points by designating, by setting a bit flag, those packets that have an
I-VOP header. Also, the applied Nagumo reference buttresses the
disclosures of Gentric and Kikuchi by teaching (FF 6) the associating of first
and second video planes with video object (VO) and video object layer
(VOL) headers.
Appeal 2009-003479
Application 10/434,302

7
We also find unpersuasive Appellant’s contention (App. Br. 13-15,
18, and 19; Reply Br. 3) that the Examiner’s reliance on an “improving error
resistance” rationale does not establish a proper basis for the proposed
combination of Gentric, Nagumo, and Kikuchi. While the Examiner’s
proposed combination of references would arguably not be for Appellant’s
explicit reason of creating independent RAU subcomponents, it is not
necessary that references be combined for the same reasons as Appellant.
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what
the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different
problem. In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1015, (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon,
919 F.2d 688, 693 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With the above discussion in mind, we find that the Examiner has set
forth a valid articulated line of reasoning with a rational underpinning to
support the conclusion of obviousness in accordance with the previously
mentioned KSR standards. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 26-28) that,
since both Gentric and Kikuchi are concerned with constraining packet loss
by partitioning video programs across a video packet stream (FF 4 and 8), an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have looked to Kikuchi for ways to improve
the access generators of Gentric. In particular, we find that an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have recognized and appreciated that Kikuchi’s
teaching (FF 8) of using I-VOP headers to identify the beginning of random
access units which are identified by the setting of a bit flag in the I-VOP
header would have served as an obvious enhancement to the MPEG-4
encoding system of Gentric. Further, as previously discussed, the Nagumo
reference supports the disclosures of Gentric and Kikuchi by teaching (FF 6)
Appeal 2009-003479
Application 10/434,302

8
the associating of first and second video planes with video object (VO) and
video object layer (VOL) headers.
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 1, 20, 22, and 31, as well as dependent claims 2, 3, 5-9,
21, 23, 24, 26-30, and 32 not separately argued by Appellant, is sustained.

Independent claims 10, 18, 33, and 41
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection, based on the
collective teachings of Gentric, Nagumo, and Kikuchi, of independent
claims 10, 18, 33, and 41 for the same reasons as discussed above with
respect to independent claims 1, 20, 22, 31. Unlike claims 1, 20, 22, and 31,
which specify that the generated RAUs include VO, VOL and I-VOP
headers, claims 10, 18, 33, and 41 set forth that the RAUs include initial
object descriptors (IODs), object descriptors (ODs) and binary format scene
description streams (BIFS).
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 29-30) that Gentric (FF 5)
discloses the claimed MPEG-4 syntax elements of object descriptors, which
would include an initial object descriptor, and scene descriptors. Further, as
pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 30), Appellant’s disclosure (FF 2)
recognizes that one method for carrying MPEG-4 programs in an MPEG-2
system defined in the industry standard ISO/IEC13818-1 is to utilize initial
object descriptors, object descriptors, and scene descriptors, i.e., IODs, ODs,
and BIFS.

Appeal 2009-003479
Application 10/434,302

9
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-24, and 26-42 for
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-24, and 26-42 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).

AFFIRMED

gvw

Gerald W. Maliszewski
P. O. Box 270829
San Diego, CA 92198-2829