Ex Parte Ito

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 9, 2015

10473534 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MASANORI ITO
____________

Appeal 2012-008036
Application 10/473,534
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.

SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 79, 82, 83, 96, 99, 100, 113, and 114.
Claims 1–6, 24, 25, 31, 32, 43, 80, 84–95, 97, and 101–112 are withdrawn,
and claims 7-23, 26-30, 33-42, 44-78, 81, and 98 are cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention relates to a data recording apparatus and a method by
which video data and audio data are compressed in real time to be recorded
on an optical disk. (Spec., 1:10–14.)
Appeal 2012-008036
Application 10/473,534

2

Claim 79 is representative and reproduced below:
79. An AV data recording apparatus comprising a video
recording unit for recording video data comprised of a plurality
of scenes as continuous data comprised of a unit packet
including a MPEG transport packet,
wherein the scene contains a plurality of unit video
packets, wherein each of the unit video packets includes a video
transport packet, an audio transport packet, a transport packet
including a P AT (program association table), a transport packet
including a PMT (program map table), and a transport packet
including a PCR (program clock reference), and
the recording unit records the transport packet including
a PAT and the transport packet including a PMT at a head of a
first unit video packet located at a head of each of the plurality
of scenes.

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 79, 82, 83, 96, 99, 100, 113, and 114
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Tozaki (US 6,567,409 B1; May
20, 2003) (Ans. 4–6).
1

ISSUE
Appellant presents multiple arguments as to why the Examiner has
erred. We focus our discussion below on the following dispositive issues
before us:

1
Although Appellant argues the Examiner rejected the claims under
Sugimura (US 6,847,781 B1; Jan. 25, 2005) (see App. Br. 4–7), that
rejection was not included in the Final Rejection dated March 3, 2011,
which is the Final Rejection being appealed from. See Notice of Appeal; see
also Ans. 7. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 79, 82, 83, 96, 99, 100,
113, and 114 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Sugimara is not
before us in this appeal.
Appeal 2012-008036
Application 10/473,534

3
Did the Examiner err in finding that Tozaki discloses “the recording
unit records the transport packet including a PAT and the transport packet
including a PMT at a head of a first unit video packet located at a head of
each of the plurality of scenes,” as recited in independent claim 79?
Did the Examiner err in finding that Tozaki discloses “recording video
data comprised of a plurality of scenes as continuous data comprised of an
unit packet including a MPEG transport packet, . . . the transport packet
including a PAT and the transport packet including a PMT are recorded at a
head of a first unit video packet located at a head of each of the plurality of
scenes,” as recited in independent claim 96?
Did the Examiner err in finding that Tozaki discloses “a recording
unit that records data other than the transport packet including a PAT and the
transport packet including a PMT at the head of one or more of the
remaining ones of the plurality of unit video packets,” as recited in
dependent claim 114?

ANALYSIS
We conclude the Examiner did not err in finding Tozaki discloses the
disputed limitations of claims 79, 82, 83, 96, 99, 100, 113, and 114. We refer
to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions set forth in
the Final Rejection and Answer (Ans. 4–20). Rather than repeat each of the
arguments in the Brief and the response in the Answer, our discussions here
will be limited to the following points of emphasis.
Appeal 2012-008036
Application 10/473,534

4
Independent claim 79
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 79 because
Tozaki does not disclose “the recording unit records the transport packet
including a PAT and the transport packet including a PMT at a head of a
first unit video packet located at a head of each of the plurality of scenes,” as
recited in independent claim 79. (See App. Br. 8.) In particular, Appellant
argues “the apparatus of Tozaki, at best, only inserts the PAT, PMT and
PCR at the beginning of the transport stream when PS/TS is started, and
from there inserts the PAT, PMT and PCR at predetermined intervals when a
difference between a transport buffer is greater than a program stream buffer
by a predetermined value .” (App. Br. 9.) The Examiner responds, in part:
The concept of where the PAT, PMT, and PCR inserted is
different from the concept of when PAT, PMT, and PCR are
inserted. The claims call for including PAT, PMT, and PCR at
the head portion which falls into the concept of 'where.'
However appellant's argument is based on when it is inserted.

(Ans. 9–10) (emphasis in original). Moreover, the Examiner finds Tozaki
discloses “the PAT, the PMT and the PCR packet are placed into the TS,
when the PS/TS conversion is started. That is, the PAT, the PMT and the
PCR packet are placed into the TS before the first packet containing data
obtained from PES packet” (Ans. 13, citing Tozaki, col. 20, line 65 through
col. 21, line 2). The Examiner explains that, contrary to Appellant’s
argument, Tozaki does not state the PAT, PMT, and PCR are inserted before
the first video data of “the entire transport stream” (Ans. 13). The Examiner
finds “Tozaki teaches inserting the PAT, PMT, and PCR at predetermined
intervals in the area corresponding to the NAVI pack 41. The area
Appeal 2012-008036
Application 10/473,534

5
corresponding to the NAVI pack 41 is at a head of a first unit video packet
located at a head of the plurality of scenes.” (Ans. 12.) The Examiner finds
a Video Object (VOB) in Tozaki corresponds to a scene. (Ans. 16.) We do
not find the Examiner’s interpretation of “scenes” to be inconsistent with the
Specification, which refers to a scene as a specific portion of the video. See
Specification, 6:5. Therefore, we find the evidence of record supports the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 79.

Independent claim 96
Appellant argues “Tozaki, at best, merely discloses that the first
VOBU of the transport stream (TS) in Tozaki includes the PAT and PMT at
the head” yet, Tozaki does not disclose recording the transport packet
including a PAT and the transport packet including a PMT at the head of a
first unit video packet located at a head of each of the plurality of scenes, as
recited in claim 96 (App. Br. 11). However, as the Examiner finds, Tozaki’s
for example at column 23, lines 11 through 16 and figure 2 show the NAVI
pack located at a head of each VOBU (Ans. 17), and VOB corresponds to a
scene (Ans. 16).
Although Appellant argues that Tozaki’s Figure 2 refers to a
program stream, rather than a transport stream (App. Br. 9), and “the
program stream cannot include an MPEG transport packet,” (Reply Br. 10),
this conclusion is not supported by evidence. Mere lawyer’s arguments and
conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled
to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just
Appeal 2012-008036
Application 10/473,534

6
attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to
rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”); see also In re De Blauwe, 736
F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). As the Examiner finds, “Tozaki further
teaches converting program stream to transport stream and 'PAT, PMT, and
PCR, packets are located in the area corresponding to the navi pack 41' (see
col. 24 lines 9-16). Therefore each head portion of the VOB unit of the
transport stream also includes PAT, PMT, and PCR.” (Ans. 9, citing
Tozaki, 24:9–16.)
Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Accordingly,
we find the evidence of record supports the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 96.

Dependent claim 114
During examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and the language should be
read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). The Office must apply the broadest
reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any
definitions presented in the specification. Id. (citations omitted).
Dependent claim 114 recites, in part, “wherein the recording unit
records data other than the transport packet including a PAT and the
transport packet including a PMT at head of one or more of the remaining
ones of the plurality of unit video packets” (emphasis added). We note at
the outset that “the remaining ones” lacks antecedent basis. In the event of
Appeal 2012-008036
Application 10/473,534

7
further prosecution of this application, we leave it to the Examiner to
determine whether the recitation of “the remaining ones” in claim 114 has
sufficient antecedent basis to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
The Examiner explains that Tozaki discloses “one VOBU, among a
plurality of VOBUs, includes data other than PAT and PMT at the head . . . .
Tozaki teaches one or more VOBUs which include(s) PCR data at the head
of the VOBU.” (Ans. 20).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings. We are not persuaded by
Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s claim interpretation of “data other
than the transport packet including a PAT and the transport packet including
a PMT” is unreasonable. Contrary to Appellant’s assertion that the “data
recorded at the head is not the PAT or the PMT,” (Reply Br. 10, emphasis in
original), we find the Examiner’s broad but reasonable construction of “data
other than the transport packet including a PAT and the transport packet
including a PMT,” means that the data may include data in addition to the
PAT and PMT, i.e., “data other than PAT and PMT.” (Ans. 20.)
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 114.
Because Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments
or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of the claims discussed above, we also sustain the
rejections of claims 82, 83, 99, 100, and 113. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2012-008036
Application 10/473,534

8
DECISION

We affirm the rejection of claims 79, 82, 83, 96, 99, 100, 113, and
114.
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).

AFFIRMED

kme