Ex Parte Kim

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 9, 2003

09131890 (B.P.A.I. May. 9, 2003)

-1-
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte SEONG-BONG KIM
________________
Appeal No. 2002-1045
Application 09/131,890
________________
HEARD: APRIL 16, 2003
________________
Before JERRY SMITH, LEVY, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-21, which constitute all the
claims in the application.
The disclosed invention pertains to a picture decoding
synchronizing circuit and method. The decoding synchronization
is controlled in units of a picture, in a variable length decoder
using PTS (presentation time stamp) and DTS (decoding time stamp)
Appeal No. 2002-1045
Application 09/131,890
-2-
information in the received signal. A calculated DTS of the
current picture is generated by adding previous DTS to an offset.
The transferred DTS is checked with the calculated DTS to see if
there is an error in the transferred DTS. If no errors are
detected in the DTS, then the transferred DTS is determined to be
the DTS value of the current picture. If an error is determined,
the calculated DTS is used. By controlling the picture decoding
using the determined DTS value, the bit buffer does not underflow
or overflow and the decoded data is displayed naturally on a
screen.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A picture decoding synchronizing circuit, comprising:
a detector for detecting whether at least one of a
presentation time stamp (PTS) and a decoding time stamp (DTS)
which are transferred through an input bit stream is distorted by
an error, and outputting a detect signal;
a determiner for determining an actual DTS value using a
transferred PTS and DTS if no errors are detected from the
transferred PTS and DTS according to the detect signal, and
determining an approximated DTS value using the value obtained by
adding a DTS value of a previous picture to a predetermined
offset value, if an error is detected in at least one of said PTS
and said DTS; and
a decoder for decoding the input bit stream in units of a
picture, in synchronization with one of the actual DTS value and
the approximated DTS value.
Appeal No. 2002-1045
Application 09/131,890
-3-
The examiner relies on the following references:
Rim et al. (Rim) 5,771,075 June 23, 1998
Suzuki 5,808,722 Sep. 15, 1998
(filed May 31, 1996)
Claims 1, 5, 12, 16, 17 and 21 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Rim.
Claims 2-4, 6-11, 13-15 and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. As evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Rim in
view of Suzuki.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence of
anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the evidence relied upon does not support either of the
Appeal No. 2002-1045
Application 09/131,890
-4-
rejections made by the examiner. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 5, 12, 16, 17
and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the
disclosure of Rim. Anticipation is established only when a
single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the
principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed
invention as well as disclosing structure which is capable of
performing the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ
385, 388 (Fed. Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L.
Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554,
220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984).
The examiner has indicated how he has read the invention of
these claims on the disclosure of Rim [answer, page 4].
Appellant argues that Rim does not operate in the manner asserted
by the examiner. Specifically, appellant argues that there is no
teaching or suggestion in Rim for correcting the received PTS/DTS
if there is an error in the PTS/DTS because Rim assumes that the
received PTS/DTS is correct and synchronizes the decoder clock
based on that. Thus appellant argues that with respect to each
of the embodiments disclosed by Rim, Rim teaches comparing a
Appeal No. 2002-1045
Application 09/131,890
-5-
calculated PTS/DTS signal with a PCR/SCR to correct a decoder
clock, but does not teach detecting errors in a received PTS/DTS
value or correcting a received erroneous PTS/DTS [brief, pages 3-
10]. The examiner responds by disagreeing with appellant’s
arguments [answer, pages 7-9]. Appellant essentially repeats his
position as argued in the brief [reply brief].
We will not sustain this rejection of the examiner for
essentially the reasons argued by appellant in the briefs. As
argued by appellant, the value of PTS/DTS in Rim is assumed to be
correct and is used to check the accuracy of the program clock
reference (PCR) and system clock reference (SCR). The PTS/DTS
value is compared to a PCR/SCR value and the difference is used
to determine whether the decoding side is faster or slower than
the encoding side. There is no approximated DTS value calculated
in Rim which is used when there is an error detected in the DTS
or PTS values. Since Rim does not disclose every element recited
in the rejected claims, we do not sustain the rejection of these
claims as anticipated by the disclosure of Rim.
We now consider the rejection of claims 2-4, 6-11, 13-15 and
18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Rim and Suzuki. In
rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal
Appeal No. 2002-1045
Application 09/131,890
-6-
conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073,
5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the examiner
is expected to make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467
(1966), and to provide a reason why one having ordinary skill in
the pertinent art would have been led to modify the prior art or
to combine prior art references to arrive at the claimed
invention. Such reason must stem from some teaching, suggestion
or implication in the prior art as a whole or knowledge generally
available to one having ordinary skill in the art. Uniroyal,
Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434,
1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988); Ashland Oil,
Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227
USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017
(1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572,
1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings by the
examiner are an essential part of complying with the burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or
evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the
Appeal No. 2002-1045
Application 09/131,890
-7-
evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). 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 brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
by appellant [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
We will not sustain this rejection of the examiner because
the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. Rim is deficient for reasons discussed above. The
additional teachings of Suzuki do not overcome the deficiencies
of Rim. Therefore, the examiner’s rejection which relies on Rim
does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness for reasons
discussed above.
Appeal No. 2002-1045
Application 09/131,890
-8-
In summary, we have not sustained either of the
rejections made by the examiner. Therefore, the decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 1-21 is reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JS/dal
Appeal No. 2002-1045
Application 09/131,890
-9-
SUGHRUE MION ZINN MACPEAK & SEAS
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW
WASHINGTON DC 20037-3202