Ex Parte Johansson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 29, 201612518214 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/518,214 06/08/2009 132398 7590 10/03/2016 Clairvolex Inc, 4010 MOORPARK AVE, Ste, 228 San Jose, CA 95117 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ingemar Johansson 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. P23248-US2 3066 EXAMINER BURD, KEVIN MICHAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2632 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/03/2016 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): elofdocket@clairvolex.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte INGEMAR JOHANSSON, DANIEL ENSTROM, and TOMAS FRANKKILA Appeal2015-007292 Application No. 12/518,2141 Technology Center 2600 Before MARC S. HOFF, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellants' invention is a receiver that includes a detector for detecting a change in source of incoming media during an on-going communication session, and means to provide a reset signal in order to reset decoder states of a decoder in response to such a detected change before decoding new incoming media. In this way, a state mismatch can be 1 The real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ). Appeal2015-007292 Application No. 12/518,214 avoided without the need for several active decoder instances in the receiver. See Abstract. Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal: 1. A method for reducing media distortions in a receiver having a decoder for decoding incoming media and a player for playing decoded media, said method comprising the steps of: detecting, during an on-going communication session, a change in source of incoming media, said change in source indicating a state mismatch will occur in the decoder, said state mismatch resulting in media distortions; and resetting decoder states of said decoder in response to said detected change before decoding new incoming media, said resetting avoiding said state mismatch. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Katayama Barton et al. us 5,915,066 US 2001/0019658 Al June 22, 1999 Sept. 6, 2001 Claims 1-9, 11-19, and 21-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Barton. 2 Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barton and Katayama. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed [March 16, 2015]) and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed [May 28, 2015]) for their respective details. 2 The Examiner has withdrawn the§ 102(b) rejection of claims 1-5, 8, 11- 18, and 21-25 as being anticipated by Chisholm, and has withdrawn the § 103(a) rejection of claims 10 and 20 as being unpatentable over Chisholm and Katayama. Ans. 2. 2 Appeal2015-007292 Application No. 12/518,214 ISSUE Does Barton teach detecting, during an on-going communication session, a change in source of incoming media? PRINCIPLES OF LAW "A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art reference." See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Jn re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). ANALYSIS CLAIMS 1-9, 11-19, AND 21-25 Appellants argue that "[ w ]hile Barton discloses changing between video streams and resetting decoders, there is no disclosure in the cited portions that the change in video streams will result in a state mismatch, let alone one that will cause media distortions." Br. 9. As explained further below, Appellants arguments are not commensurate with the scope of Appellants' claims and are therefore not persuasive of Examiner error. Specifically, contrary to Appellants' arguments, Appellants do not affirmatively claim the occurrence of a state mismatch, detection of a state mismatch, or any other step or structure relating to a potential state mismatch beyond the detection of a change in source of incoming media. Claim 1, for example, recites detecting a change in source of incoming media, "said change in source indicating a state mismatch will occur," and resetting decoder states in order to avoid a state mismatch, but the clause "said change in source indicating a state mismatch will occur" merely expresses a reason for performing the "detecting" and "resetting" steps-it 3 Appeal2015-007292 Application No. 12/518,214 does not materially affect the claimed method. See Minton v. Nat. Assoc. of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("A whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited."). Our interpretation of claim 1 is buttressed by Appellants' Specification, which describes Appellants' invention in terms of detecting a change in media streams. See, e.g., Spec. 4 ("A basic idea of the invention is therefore to detect a change in source of incoming media during an on- going communication session, and reset decoder states of the decoder in response to such a detected change before decoding new incoming media. In this way, the state mismatch can be avoided .... "); 13-15 (describing multiple examples for detecting media-source changes). Appellants' Specification evidences that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a state mismatch is the normal result of a change in media streams during an on-going communication. The Specification states, for example, that "it has been recognized that encoding the media with different instances of the encoder while using the same decoder will normally lead to a state mismatch in the decoder." Spec. 6. Similarly, the Specification states "the use of modem prediction-based codecs will normally lead to state mismatches, e.g. when an announcement interrupts the normal media, resulting in audible or otherwise perceivable distortions that may also be annoying to the user." Spec. 9. In contrast, Appellants' Specification does not disclose detection of a change in video streams that would not to give rise to such a state mismatch, and the Specification does not describe any method for distinguishing changes in media sources that will cause a state 4 Appeal2015-007292 Application No. 12/518,214 mismatch from changes in media sources that will not cause a state mismatch. Because we find that the claims at issue do not affirmatively recite a state mismatch, Appellants' argument that Barton does not disclose that "the change in video streams will result in a state mismatch, let alone one that will cause media distortions" is not commensurate with the scope of the claims, and is not persuasive to show that the Examiner's rejection is erroneous. See Br. 9. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Barton discloses "detecting, during an on-going communication session, a change in source of incoming media" and resetting decoder states in response to the detected change. Ans. 3. [T]his structure allows fast and efficient switching between stream sources, since buffered data can be simply discarded and decoders reset using a single event, after which data from the new stream will pass down the pipeline. Such a capability is needed, for example, when switching the channel being captured by the input session, or \'l1hen S\'l1itching bet\'l/een a live signal from the input section and a stored stream. Barton i-f 54. We therefore find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1- 9, 11-19, and 21-25 as being anticipated by Barton. We sustain the Examiner's§ 102 rejection. CLAIMS 10 AND 20 Appellants only argument concerning these claims is that Katayama fails to remedy the deficiencies of Barton. Because we find supra that Barton anticipates the invention of claims 1 and 12, then, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims 10 and 20 over Barton and Katayama, 5 Appeal2015-007292 Application No. 12/518,214 for the same reasons given with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 12, supra. CONCLUSION Barton teaches detecting, during an on-going communication session, a change in source of incoming media, and the Examiner did not err in the rejections subject to this Appeal. ORDER The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-25 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation