Ex Parte Krebs

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 10, 2016

11107952 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111107,952 04/18/2005
132285 7590 11/15/2016
Elan IP Inc,
PO Box 990
Richmond Hill, ON L4B 4R7
CANADA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mark Sinclair Krebs
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.
85679-1 5446
EXAMINER
DOBBS, KRISTIN SENSMEIER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/15/2016 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):
ip@elan-ip.com
yasin@elan-ip.com
USPTO@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK SINCLAIR KREBS
Appeal 2016-002538
Application 11/107 ,952 1
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 5, 6, 8-12, and 20. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Mark Sinclair Krebs
(App. Br. 1 ).
Appeal 2016-002538
Application 11/107 ,952
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 5, 6, 8-12, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Vetro et al. (US 6,490,320 Bl, published Dec. 3,
2002), Jayant et al. (US 2011/0292996 Al, published Dec. 1, 2011), and Lin
et al. (US 2004/0194144 Al, published Sept. 30, 2004).
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention generally relates to "issues of the wireless
Internet," and more particularly to "methods of multimedia transmission and
playback for mobile clients." Spec. 1. Independent claims 5 and 20 are
directed to methods. App. Br. 10, 12.
Claim 5 recites (emphasis added):
5. A method of creating multimedia objects, where, in the case of
a live multimedia stream, the input multimedia stream is:
first transcoded into a optimal audiovisual format such as
MPEG4/ AAC and at an optimal encoding rate reflecting available
cellular network bandwidth,
then dynamically converted into discrete multimedia objects by
splitting the encoded stream into specified intervals by scanning after
the specified intervals for the next I-frame, and each multimedia
segment is split at that next I-frame to create another discrete
multimedia object, and
then immediately transmitted to distributed content servers
transmitting the recently created discrete multimedia objects to
wireless clients;
alternatively, in the case of converting an archived multimedia
file, the input multimedia stream is first transcoded into a optimal
audiovisual format such as MPEG4/ AAC and at an optimal encoding
rate reflecting available cellular network bandwidth, and
then converted into discrete multimedia objects by splitting the
encoded stream into specified intervals by scanning after the specified
intervals for the next I-frame, and each multimedia segment is split at
that next I-frame to create another discrete multimedia object;
2
Appeal 2016-002538
Application 11/107 ,952
wherein each of said discrete multimedia objects includes a
video segment forming part of a stream of video and each video
segment is provided with a distinctive Internet address;
wherein each of said distinctive Internet addresses are read
sequentially to play back said stream of video and maintain visual
fluidity.
ANALYSIS
\Ve have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Exarniner erred. We are not persuaded that Appellant
identifies reversible error. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in
the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, we agree \vi th the Examiner that all the
pending claims are unpatentable over the cited combination of references.
vVe adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from
which this appeal is taken and in the Exarniner's Answer. \Ve provide the
following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and
findings primarily for emphasis.
Claims 5, 6, 8-12, and 20
Appellant contends Vetro does not teach an improvement to image
quality and reduction in receiving irrelevant data over a costly network, and
thereby Vetro 's bitstream is different from the claimed multimedia stream.
See App. Br. 5. In response, the Examiner finds such improvement and
reduction "are not recited in the rejected claims." Ans. 10. We agree with
the Examiner.
Claim 5 is directed towards an "input multimedia stream" that is
"transcoded into a optimal audiovisual format such as MPEG4/AAC and at
an optimal encoding rate reflecting available cellular network bandwidth,"
and the multimedia stream is "then dynamically converted into discrete
multimedia objects by splitting the encoded stream into specified intervals
3
Appeal 2016-002538
Application 11/107 ,952
by scanning after the specified intervals for the next I-frame, and each
multimedia segment is split at that next I-frame to create another discrete
multimedia object" (emphases added). The claim does not require any
particular steps in the presence of network congestion or other network
interruption, as argued by Appellant. See App. Br. 5.
Appellant further contends Jayant's MPEG video stream and frames
"are not discrete multimedia objects but rather a portion of a MPEG stream."
App. Br. 5---6.
Claim 5 is directed towards dynamically converting a multimedia
stream "into discrete multimedia objects by splitting the encoded stream into
specified intervals by scanning after the specified intervals for the next !-
frame, and each multimedia segment is split at that next I-frame to create
another discrete multimedia object" (emphases added). Appellant's
Specification states the "multimedia object creator produces discrete
multimedia objects from video and audio segments of a continuous stream,"
and that the discrete multimedia objects provide the mobile client with "the
opportunity to interact with any given media sequence on a per object basis."
Spec. 6, 7. However, Appellant provides no limiting definition of the
claimed discrete multimedia object that excludes portions of video streams,
and rather merely describes a method for how a discrete multimedia object
may be formed. See claim 5.
In response, the Examiner finds Jayant's video sequences composed
of series of groups of pictures "read on 'discrete multimedia objects."' Ans.
11; see also Ans. 3--4. As cited by the Examiner, Jayant describes that each
"video sequence is composed of a series of groups of pictures ( GoPs )" and
that "[ e Jach GoP is composed of a series of frames, beginning with an I-
4
Appeal 2016-002538
Application 11/107 ,952
frame." J ayant i1 21. In other words, J ayant' s video is separated into groups
of pictures, separated by I-frames. Appellant has not provided persuasive
evidence or argument that discrete multimedia objects from splitting a
stream into intervals and splitting the segments at I-frames, as claimed, is
not taught or otherwise suggested by Jayant's groups of pictures separated
by I-frames.
Appellant further contends Jayant does not split "an encoded stream
into specified intervals" but rather is dividing uncompressed video frames in
order to encode them. App. Br. 6. Appellant's argument against Jayant
separately from Vetro does not persuasively rebut the combination made by
the Examiner. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually, where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Specifically, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that V etro teaches "that the "multimedia stream is first
transcoded' and the coding of audiovisual objects." Ans. 11; see also Ans.
3. For example, Vetro describes MPEG-4 as "allow[ing] arbitrary-shaped
objects to be encoded and decoded as separate video object planes," as well
as the delivery of "a compressed bitstream 301 with information content
through a network 350 to a user device 360" wherein "[t]he content of the
bitstream can be visual, audio .... " Vetro, col. 1, 11. 44--50, col. 7, 11. 44--
48. In other words, Vetro describes encoding a stream for a compressed
bitstream.
Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument that "the
input multimedia stream is: first transcoded into a optimal audiovisual
format such as MP EG4/ AAC and at an optimal encoding rate reflecting
5
Appeal 2016-002538
Application 11/107 ,952
available cellular network bandwidth, then dynamically converted into
discrete multimedia objects by splitting the encoded stream into specified
intervals," as claimed, is not taught or otherwise suggested by Vetro's
encoding of a stream for a compressed bitstream and Jayant's separating the
stream into groups of pictures.
Claim 5 further requires:
wherein each of said discrete multimedia objects includes a video
segment forming part of a stream of video and each video
segment is provided with a distinctive Internet address; wherein
each of said distinctive Internet addresses are read sequentially
to play back said stream of video and maintain visual fluidity.
(Emphases added.) With regards to this limitation, Appellant contends Lin's
IP address corresponds to a channel and does not teach or suggest "each of
said discrete multimedia objects includes a video segment forming part of a
stream of video and each video segment is provided with a distinctive
Internet address," and Lin's retrieval of sequential programs does not teach
or suggest "each of said distinctive Internet addresses are read sequentially
to play back said stream of video and maintain visual fluidity." App. Br. 6-
7. In response, the Examiner finds Lin teaches "at least one IP address"
representing "corresponding video programs," and Lin teaches "the
receiving of the connection from the user's end electronic devices 16
through the IP address 121 and sequentially retrieving program 1291 from a
program bank 129, and then transmit the retrieved programs." Ans. 12; see
also Ans. 5. We agree with the Examiner.
As cited by the Examiner, Lin describes "at least one IP (internet
protocol address)" that "represents corresponding video programs, e.g.
x0.xl.x2.x3 represents the video programs in channel 39 and y0.yl.Oy2.y3
6
Appeal 2016-002538
Application 11/107 ,952
represents the video programs in channel 40," and "to receive the connection
from the user's end electronic devices 16 through the IP address 121 and
retrieve sequentially program 1291 from a program bank 129 and then
transmit the retrieved programs to the user's end electronic devices 16." Lin
i-f 3 1. In other words, Lin teaches at least one internet address, and different
internet addresses for each of the corresponding video programs, and the use
of the internet addresses to sequentially retrieve programs. Appellant has
not provided persuasive evidence or argument that each video segment is
provided with a distinctive Internet address with each Internet address read
sequentially to play back stream of video, as claimed, is not taught or
otherwise suggested by Lin's IP addresses corresponding to video programs
and sequential program playback.
Appellant further contends that the Examiner's rejection fails to
provide sufficient rationale to sustain a 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, and Lin's
"asynchronous viewing is altogether different from appellant's claims."
App. Br. 8. However, "[i]n determining whether the subject matter of a
patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed
purpose of the patentee controls." KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 419 (2007). In accordance with KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quotations and
citation omitted), the Examiner has provided "some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." See Final Act. 4--5, 12-13. Specifically, the Examiner finds
it would have been obvious to modify and combine the references provide
"efficient compression and transport of video over a network by providing a
multi-scale adaptive video coding system" and "that the user can control
playback of a cable program." Final Act. 5, 6; Ans. 4--5. As Appellant has
7
Appeal 2016-002538
Application 11/107 ,952
failed to acknowledge or address the Examiner's articulated reasoning, we
are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner's contemplated
combination of references would render Vetro and Jayant inoperable and
frustrate the purpose of the system. App. Br. 8. We are not persuaded by
Appellant's argument. We agree with the Examiner's findings that Jayant is
in the same field of endeavor as Vetro, as well as the Examiner's findings
that Lin is in the same field of endeavor as Jayant and Vetro. See Ans. 3, 5.
We further agree with the Examiner's findings that it would have been
obvious to apply Jayant's efficient compression and transport of video over a
network to Vetro, and to apply Lin's teaching of asynchronous viewing of
programs from the internet to Jayant and Vetro. See Ans. 4, 5. Specifically,
Vetro is directed towards information delivery systems adapting information
to available bit rates of a network; Jayant is directed towards enhancing
improved efficiency and quality of video presentation at a display device;
and Lin is directed to asynchronously watching programs from the internet.
See Vetro, col. 1, 11. 15-18; see also Jayant, Abstract; see also Lin, Abstract.
We find Vetro 's intended purposes of providing media delivery is furthered
by Jayant's improvements for video presentation as well as Lin's
asynchronous viewing of media programs.
Accordingly, we sustain the § 103 rejection of independent claim 5, as
well as commensurate independent claim 20 and dependent claims 6 and 8-
12, not separately argued. See App. Br. 4.
8
Appeal 2016-002538
Application 11/107 ,952
DECISION
The rejection of claims 5, 6, 8-12, and 20, is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9