Ex Parte Mighani et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 28, 201712774608 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/774,608 05/05/2010 Farhad Mighani CAV1-033/00US 305936-2047 8362 41066 7590 02/28/2017 MURABITO, HAO & BARNES LLP TWO NORTH MARKET STREET THIRD FLOOR SAN JOSE, CA 95113 EXAMINER ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/28/2017 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FARHAD MIGHANI, ALBERTO DUENAS, NGUYEN NGUYEN, and GORKA GARCIA Appeal 2015-003746 Application 12/774,608 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—20, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 An oral hearing was held for this appeal on Feb. 15, 2017. Appeal 2015-003746 Application 12/774,608 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is directed to a system and method for low-latency multimedia streaming over a communication link on a network. Title, Abstract. Claims 1,7, 11, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (with emphasis added): 1. A method of transmitting a multimedia stream over a network, comprising: receiving a multimedia stream from a source, the multimedia stream comprising video data; determining a first set of video encoding parameters; encoding a first portion of the video data into a first encoded video slice using the first set of video encoding parameters; transmitting the first encoded video slice over a communication link of the network to a receiver; monitoring conditions of the communication link; determining a second set of video encoding parameters based on the conditions of the communication link; encoding a second portion of the video data into a second encoded video slice using the second set of video encoding parameters; transmitting the second encoded video slice over the communication link to the receiver, wherein the first encoded video slice and the second encoded video slice each comprise a series of macro blocks constituting a segment of a frame, wherein each segment of the frame is an independently decodable unit that is processed in parallel with other segments of the frame to establish sub-frame level processing; and adjusting an encoded video bit rate at the sub-frame level to allow for rapid adaptation to changing channel conditions and to minimize latency. 2 Appeal 2015-003746 Application 12/774,608 The Examiner s Rejection Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Oda (US 5,703,646; Dec. 30, 1997). Final Act. 6. ANALYSIS Appellants argue “the Office action [has] failed to establish a prima facie case of anticipation” with respect to independent claim 1, because “Oda fails to disclose that each segment of the frame is an independently decodable unit that is processed in parallel with other segments of the frame to establish subframe level processing” as claimed. App. Br. 21.2 The Examiner finds the disputed limitation is part of a “wherein clause [that] is a redundant definition of a slice . . . [which] does not limit Claim 1 to performing a particular step,” and that “Paragraph 41 of [Appellants’] Specification recites that slice structure as defined by the MPEG standard has an inherent benefit that it allows parallel processing.” Ans. 14—15. The Examiner finds Oda therefore discloses the limitation, because Oda “illustrates] that a slice comprises a series of macroblocks” which necessarily “anticipates the slice structure and its inherent benefits recited in Claim 1.” Ans. 14—15; Oda Fig. 10B, 18:44-46; see also Spec. 141. We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We find the Examiner has not accorded proper weight to the claim recitation: “wherein the first encoded video slice and the second encoded video slice each comprise a series of macro blocks constituting a segment of a frame . . . that is 2 Appellants present additional arguments, but we do not reach them because the identified arguments are dispositive of the appeal. 3 Appeal 2015-003746 Application 12/774,608 processed in parallel with other segments of the frame to establish sub-frame level processing.” Oda’s disclosure that “a slice comprises a series of macroblocks,” as found by the Examiner (Final Act. 8), is not enough to show anticipation of claim 1. The limitation at issue recites the segment is processed; thus the wherein clause provides a positive limitation regarding an action taken on the segment, rather than a mere definition of the segment itself. See Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1033, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“the Board did not err in giving limiting effect to the ‘wherein’ clauses because they relate back to and clarity what is required.”). Here, we agree with Appellants that “although Oda[] mentions MPEG encoding/decoding, Oda fails to even contemplate taking advantage of parallel decoding on a sub-frame level” as required by the claim, and “consequently, Oda cannot be used for anticipation of the claimed element.” Reply Br. 32 (emphasis removed). That is, in Oda, every element of the claimed invention is not “literally present, arranged as in the claim,” because Oda does not disclose parallel processing frames or slices of a video input. See Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Thus, Oda fails to disclose all limitations recited by independent claim 1. Further, we note the Examiner finds “Appellant’s specification does not support parallel processing in implementing the claimed method, thus Claim 1 cannot be interpreted to include it as a limitation.” Ans. 14. To the extent the Examiner attempts to read the limitation out of the claim, such claim construction is improper as all claim terms must be given effect. Cf Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007). To the extent the Examiner implies the claims do not conform to the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, any such 4 Appeal 2015-003746 Application 12/774,608 rejection should be made explicit during the course of prosecution rather than as a supplement to the prior art analysis. Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Oda teaches all limitations of independent claim 1. We do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 1, or independent claims 7, 11, and 17, which recite similar “is processed in parallel” limitations. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation