Ex Parte ItoDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 9, 201510473534 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2015) Copy Citation 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 Claims 1–6, 24, 25, 31, 32, 43, 80, 84–95, 97, and 101–112 are withdrawn, and claims 7-23, 26-30, 33-42, 44-78, 81, and 98 are cancelled.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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation