Ex Parte Kaye

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 7, 2019

13276581 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/276,581 10/19/2011 James E. Kaye
102107 7590 02/11/2019
Brokaw Patent Law, PC
101 Church Street, Suite 50
Los Gatos, CA 95030
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.
HRMC.Pl43 5897
EXAMINER
MESSMORE, JONATHAN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/11/2019 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):
chris@brokawpatentlaw.com
amaloney@brokawpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES E. KA YE
Appeal 2018-003465
Application 13/276,581
Technology Center 2400
Before MARC S. HOFF, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-26, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Harmonic, Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-003465
Application 13/276,581
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention relates generally "to
video and image processing." Spec. ,r 1. 2 The Specification explains that
"video channels can be allocated with bit rates that are set based on a
predefined video compression quality." Id. at Abstract. The Specification
also explains that encoders "can pre-encode each input signal at multiple,
different bit rates, and record the video compression quality value achievable
at each of the bit rates" to "generate a table describing the set of video
compression quality values each corresponding to a bit rate value that can be
used to achieve that video compression quality value." Id.; see id. ,r,r 4, 12,
26-27. Further, "the processing requirement used in pre-encoding can be
reduced by using a reduced resolution (spatially and/or temporally) version
of the input video signals used in the encoding phase." Id. ,r 28.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as
follows (with formatting added for clarity):
1. A system comprising:
a plurality of encoders each providing, to a controller,
pre-compression coding data for a channel of program content
that identifies a relationship between (a) one or more bit rates
and (b) corresponding video compression quality levels,
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the
Specification, filed October 19, 2011; "Final Act." for the Final Office
Action, mailed March 10, 2017; "App. Br." for the Appeal Brief, filed
August 11, 2017; "Ans." for the Examiner's Answer, mailed December 14,
2017; and "Reply Br." for the Reply Brief, filed February 14, 2018.
2
Appeal2018-003465
Application 13/276,581
wherein the pre-compression coding data is
generated at each of the plurality of encoders by said
each encoder encoding a reduced resolution version of
said channel of program content a plurality of times at a
different bit rate; and
the controller that:
receives, from each of the plurality of encoders,
the pre-compression coding data;
determines a total bit rate available for the system;
identifies, for each of the plurality of encoders, a
highest video compression quality level based on (a) the
pre-compression coding data, including said parameters,
and (b) the total bit rate available; and
instructs each of the plurality of encoders, which
sent said pre-compression coding data, to use a particular
highest video compression quality level identified for that
encoder.
App. Br. 21 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence ofunpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a), the
Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Jiang et al. ("Jiang")
Gu et al. ("Gu")
US 7,346,106 Bl Mar. 18, 2008
US 2010/0189183 Al July 29, 2010
Yamagishi et al. ("Yamagishi") US 2010/0284295 Al Nov. 11, 2010
Sept. 29, 2011 Jones et al. ("Jones") US 2011/0235654 Al
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1--4, 8-12, 14--16, and 20-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Jones and Jiang. Final Act. 3-10.
Claims 5-7 and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Jones, Jiang, and Gu. Final Act. 10-12.
3
Appeal2018-003465
Application 13/276,581
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Jones, Jiang, and Yamagishi. Final Act. 12-13.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1-26 in light of
Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred. Based on the record before
us and for the reasons explained below, we concur with Appellant's
contentions that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited portions of
Jones and Jiang teach or suggest a "plurality of encoders" each "encoding a
reduced resolution version of' input program content "a plurality of times at
a different bit rate."
The§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1-4, 8-12, 14-16, and 20-26
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
Jones and Jiang do not teach or suggest the following limitation in claim 1:
"wherein the pre-compression coding data is generated at each of the
plurality of encoders by said each encoder encoding a reduced resolution
version of said channel of program content a plurality of times at a different
bit rate." See App. Br. 10-18; Reply Br. 4--7. In particular, Appellant
contends that "[t]he term resolution, in the context of digital video, refers to
the number of horizontal lines composing a frame of digital video from top
to bottom and the number of pixels in each line." Reply Br. 2. Appellant
provides examples of different resolutions: 1920 pixels X 1080 lines ( a High
Definition video frame), "720 pixels X 486 lines (a NTSC video frame), 720
pixels X 576 lines (a PAL video frame), and 1280 pixels X 720 lines ( certain
HD video frames)." Id. Appellant asserts that claim 1 requires (1) a
"channel of program content," e.g., "having a High Definition resolution of
4
Appeal2018-003465
Application 13/276,581
1920 X 1080," and (2) a "reduced resolution version of that very same
channel of program content," e.g., "having a Standard Definition resolution
of 640 X 480)." Id. at 6.
Further, Appellant urges that (1) Jones "discusses the well-known
prior art technique of statistical multiplexing"; (2) "[ s ]tatistical multiplexing
is performed on the actual content to be encoded"; and (3) Jones "lacks any
mention of encoding a reduced resolution version of program content."
App. Br. 12; see Reply Br. 5-7.
In addition, Appellant contends that Jiang "teaches a process for
encoding program content" that "involves accepting the encoded program
content rather than producing pre-compression coding data as claimed."
App. Br. 15-16. Appellant also contends that Jiang's discussion of
"multiple-pass variable bit rate encoding" to "set an optimized bit rate by
making multiple passes through the same video content is quite different,
and cannot be reasonably considered analogous to, generating pre-
compression coding data." Id. at 16-1 7.
In response, the Examiner explains that (1) claim 1 "state[s] 'encoding
a reduced resolution version"' and (2) "Jones merely has to disclose an
encoder to disclose the claimed 'encoding a reduced resolution version."'
Ans. 12. The Examiner finds that paragraphs 3 and 8 in Jones disclose an
encoder. Id. Further, the Examiner finds that "the multiple passes of Jiang
encode a reduced resolution version of the content when they encode the
content" and "the final encoding ... inherently encodes a reduces [sic]
resolution version." Id. at 13.
Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portions of Jones and
5
Appeal2018-003465
Application 13/276,581
Jiang teach or suggest a "plurality of encoders" each "encoding a reduced
resolution version of' input program content "a plurality of times at a
different bit rate" as required by claim 1. For instance, the cited portions of
Jones do not indicate that the statistical multiplexing operates on reduced
resolution versions of input program content. See Jones ,r,r 2--4, 8, 10-12,
14, 21, 40--42, 74, 83-84. Further, the cited portions of Jiang do not indicate
that the multiple-pass variable-bit-rate encoding operates on reduced
resolution versions of input program content. See Jiang 1: 17-20, 2: 14--18,
Abstract, Fig. 4. The Examiner's analysis incorrectly considers encoder
output-not encoder input-as the location for the required reduced
resolution version. See Ans. 12-14; see also Spec. ,r,r 4, 12, 26-28,
Abstract. Hence, we do not sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1.
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 14 AND 24
Like claim 1, independent claims 14 and 24 require a "plurality of
encoders" each "encoding a reduced resolution version of' input program
content "a plurality of times at a different bit rate." App. Br. 24--25, 27-28
(Claims App.). For the reasons discussed for claim 1, we do not sustain the
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 14 and 24. 3
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 2--4, 8-12, 15, 16, 20-23, 25, AND 26
Claims 2--4, 8-12, 25, and 26 depend directly or indirectly from
claim 1; and claims 15, 16, and 20-23 depend directly or indirectly from
3 For claims 1, 14, and 24, the Examiner should consider the propriety of a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ,r 2 due to (1) the lack of antecedent basis
for the term "said parameters" in claims 1, 14, and 24 and (2) the lack of
antecedent basis for the term "said channel" in claims 14 and 24.
6
Appeal2018-003465
Application 13/276,581
claim 14. For the reasons discussed for claims 1 and 14, we do not sustain
the§ 103(a) rejection of claims 2--4, 8-12, 15, 16, 20-23, 25, and 26.
The§ 103(a) Rejections of Claims 5-7, 13, and 17-19
Claims 5-7 and 13 depend indirectly from claim 1; and claims 1 7-19
depend indirectly from claim 14. On this record, the Examiner has not
shown how the additionally cited secondary references----Gu and
Yamagishi----overcome the deficiency in Jones and Jiang for claims 1
and 14. Hence, we do not sustain the§ 103(a) rejections of claims 5-7, 13,
and 17-19.
Because this determination resolves the appeal with respect to
claims 1-26, we need not address Appellant's other arguments regarding
Examiner error. See, e.g., Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423
(Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining that an administrative agency may render a
decision based on "a single dispositive issue").
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-26.
REVERSED
7