Ex Parte LOU et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 28, 2004

09288833 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 28, 2004)

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not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the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 HUI-LING LOU,
GERALD DIETRICH THOMAS SCHULLER
and
VIJITHA WEERACKODY
____________
Appeal No. 2003-2038
Application No. 09/288,833
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before JERRY SMITH, FLEMING, and RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection
of claims 1 through 20, all the claims pending in the instant
application.

Appeal No. 2003-2038
Application 09/288,833
2
Invention
The invention relates to audio and video streaming
applications employed in data packet-based networks such as, for
example, the Internet. Internet applications that employ audio
and video streaming are becoming increasingly prevalent. As a
natural consequence, there are large packet delays. Also, data
packets are sometimes even lost completely by the network.
Buffering helps to reduce the detrimental effects of the
relatively large and variable packet delays which result from
varying levels of network congestion. Packet losses in the
network are typically addressed by using a forward error
correction code across the packets. See page 1 of Appellants’
specification. Clearly then, a large receive buffer is highly
desirable to provide a better quality signal because it increases
the probability that most of the packets representing data within
a given period of time will have been successfully accumulated in
the buffer before it is necessary to decode them for playback.
However, a large buffer also results in large buffering delays.
It would be desirable, therefore, to provide a source coding and
receive data buffering scheme which results in more acceptable
Appeal No. 2003-2038
Application 09/288,833
3
buffering delays without sacrificing the benefits of using a
large receive buffer. See page 2 of Appellant’s specification.
Figure 1 shows an illustrative embodiment of
Appellants’ invention. In particular, the figure shows a program
source which is encoded by both source coder 11 and source coder
12 to produce two independent bit streams. See page 5 of
Appellants’ specification. The signal generated by source coder
12 is delayed prior to transmission by a conventional delay
element 14. The amount of delay which is applied is approxi-
mately equal to the difference in the delays which are to be
incurred by the receive buffers used at the receiver prior to
the decoding of the two data streams. Channel 16 represents a
communications channel adapted to transmission of packet-based
data streams such as the Internet. See page 6 of Appellants’
specification. The receiving end of channel 16 comprises two
receive buffers 17 and 18. Receive buffer 17 has an associated
buffer delay of n1 and receive buffer 18 has an associated buffer
delay of n2. In accordance with the principles of the invention,
n1 is greater than n2. Receive buffer 17 and receive buffer 18
are used to provide input to decoder 21 and decoder 22,
Appeal No. 2003-2038
Application 09/288,833
4
respectively. See page 7 of Appellants’ specification.
Selection processor 24 selects either the output of decoder 21 or
the output of decoder 22. The output of decoder 22 is initially
selected by selection processor 24. After the time period delay
provided by delay element 14 has elapsed and once delay n1 has
elapsed, the output of decoder 21 is selected. See page 8 of
Appellants’ specification.
Appellants’ claim 1 is representative of Appellants’
claimed invention and is reproduced as follows:
1. A method of processing two or more sequences of
data packets received from a network, each of said sequences of
data packets representing a common program source, the method
comprising the steps of:
buffering data packets comprised in a
first one of said sequences in a first
receive buffer having a first buffering
delay;
buffering data packets comprised in a
second one of said sequences in a second
receive buffer having a second buffering
delay, wherein said second buffering delay
is smaller then said first buffering delay;
decoding the data packets buffered in said
second receive buffer after said second
buffering delay has elapsed;
decoding the data packets buffered in said
first receive buffer after said first
buffering delay has elapsed;
Appeal No. 2003-2038
Application 09/288,833
5
generating a reproduction of said program
source based at least upon the decoding of
the data packets buffered in said second
receive buffer before said first buffering
delay has elapsed, and based at least upon
the decoding of the data packets buffered in
said first receive buffer after said first
buffering delay has elapsed.
References
The references relied on by the Examiner are as
follows:
Cellario et al. (Cellario) 6,108,626 Aug. 22, 2000
(filed May 14, 1998)
Goyal et al. (Goyal) 6,345,125 Feb. 5, 2002
(filed Feb. 25, 1998)
Adams 0,695,094 Jan. 31, 1996
(European Patent Application)
Orchard et al. (Orchard), “Redundancy Rate-Distortion Analysis
of Multiple Description Coding Using Pairwise Correlating
Transforms,” IEEE, 1997
Rejections at Issue
Claims 1, 3 through 7, 9 through 11, 13 through 17, 19
and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Adams in view of Cellario. Claims 2 and 12 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view
of Cellario and Goyal. Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under
Appeal No. 2003-2038
Application 09/288,833
1 Appellants filed an appeal brief on February 19, 2003.
Appellants filed a reply brief on June 25, 2003. The Examiner
mailed out an Office communication on July 18, 2003 stating that
the reply brief has been entered.
6
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of
Cellario and Orchard.
Throughout our opinion, we will make reference to the
briefs1 and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject
matter on appeal, the Examiner’s rejections and the arguments
of Appellants and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra,
we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
Appeal No. 2003-2038
Application 09/288,833
7
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming
forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellants.
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See also Piasecki,
745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788.
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. “In
reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.” Oetiker,
977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. “[T]he Board must not only
assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence
of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the
findings are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In
re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir.
2002). With these principles in mind, we commence review of the
pertinent evidence and arguments of Appellants and Examiner.
Appellants argue that the combination of Adams and
Cellario fails to teach or suggest all the limitations set forth
Appeal No. 2003-2038
Application 09/288,833
8
in independent claims 1 and 11. Specifically, Appellants argue
that Adams and Cellario fail to teach or suggest “processing two
or more sequences of data packets . . . , each of said sequence
of data packets representing a common program source” as required
by claims 1 and 11. Appellants further argue that the combina-
tion of Adams and Cellario fails to teach or suggest “buffering
data packets comprised in a second one of said sequences in a
second receive buffer having a second buffering delay, wherein
said second buffer delay is smaller than said first buffering
delay,” as recited in Appellants’ claim 1. Appellants further
argue that the combination of Adams and Cellario fails to teach
or suggest “a second receive buffer having a second buffering
delay for buffering data packets comprised in a second one of
said sequences, wherein said second buffering delay is smaller
than said first buffering delay” as recited in Appellants’
claim 11. See pages 8 through 10 of Appellants’ brief.
In response, the Examiner argues that the combination
of Adams and Cellario teaches buffering data packets comprising a
second one of said sequences in a second receive buffer having a
second buffering delay, wherein said second buffering delay is
Appeal No. 2003-2038
Application 09/288,833
9
smaller than the first buffering delay. The Examiner points out
that Adams teaches multiple video data streams that are received
and decoded simultaneously using multiple buffers and decoder
servers. The Examiner points out that Cellario teaches multiple
audio data streams from the same program source which could be
saved in multiple buffers. The Examiner argues that Adams uses
an input switch to control the flow rates of the two video data
streams on the two video lines. The first video data stream
flows at a first rate. The second video data stream flows at a
second rate, which could be different than the first one. The
Examiner points us to Adams, column 3, lines 20-29. See page 18
of the Examiner’s answer.
In the reply brief, Appellants argue that Adams and
Cellario fail to teach or suggest buffering data packets from one
of the sequences of a first receive buffer having a first
buffering delay and buffering data packets from another one of
the sequences in a second receive buffer having a second
buffering delay, the second buffering delay being smaller than
the first buffering delay, as set forth in claims 1 and 11.
Appellants point out that with reference to figure 3, Adams
discloses a video decompression system 100 that includes two
Appeal No. 2003-2038
Application 09/288,833
10
parallel video compression circuits 120 and 130. Adams clearly
intends that the two decompression circuits 120 and 130 comprise
buffers that are identical to one another. Appellants argue that
Adams does not teach or remotely suggest that the buffers are of
unequal size or that they have different buffering delays
associated therewith as required by Appellants’ claims. See
Appellants’ Reply Brief, pages 3 and 4.
We note that the Examiner has not been able to point to
the specific teaching in either Adams or Cellario that teaches
buffering data packets from one of the sequences in a first
receive buffer having a first buffering delay and buffering data
packets from another one of the sequences in a second receive
buffer having a second buffering delay, the second buffering
delay being smaller than the first buffering delay as required by
Appellants’ claims. Furthermore, we note that Adams teaches that
the buffers comprise eight 256K words by 16 bit dynamic random
access memories coupled to the decoder. See Adams, column 5,
lines 3-6. Therefore, Adams teaches that the buffers are
identical and therefore would have the same buffering delays, not
different as required by the claims.
Appeal No. 2003-2038
Application 09/288,833
11
Turning to the rejection of claims 2 and 12 as being
unpatentable over Adams in view of Cellario and Goyal, and the
rejection of claims 8 and 18 as being unpatentable over Adams in
view of Cellario and Orchard, we fail to find that Goyal or
Orchard teaches the above limitation. We note that claims 2,
8, 12 and 18 depend from claims 1 and 11. Therefore, we will
not sustain these rejections for the same reasons as above.
In view of the foregoing, we have not sustained the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF:psb
Appeal No. 2003-2038
Application 09/288,833
12
ATTN: Wayne L. Ellenbogen
Ryan, Mason & Lewis LLP
90 Forest Avenue
Locust Valley, NY 11560