Ex Parte Narayanan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 7, 2018

13794715 (P.T.A.B. May. 7, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131794,715 03/11/2013
43471 7590
ARRIS Enterprises, LLC
Legal Dept - Docketing
101 Tournament Drive
HORSHAM, PA 19044
05/09/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Muralidharan Narayanan
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.
BCS06132-CON1 5340
EXAMINER
TOPGY AL, GELEK W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/09/2018 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):
arris.docketing@arris.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MURALIDHARAN NARAYANAN,
CHRISTOPHER S. DELSORDO, SURYA P.
MAHESWARAM, KRISHNA PRASAD P ANJE,
ERNEST G. SCHMITT, and YAXI ZHANG
Appeal2017-004380
Application 13/794,715
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 14--16, 18, and 19, which are all of the
claims pending in this application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is ARRIS Enterprises.
App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 2, 5-11, 13, and 17 have been canceled. App. Br. 13-16.
Appeal2017-004380
Application 13/794,715
INVENTION
Appellants' application relates to processing a sequence of coded
video frames. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows:
1. A method of processing a sequence of coded video frames
conveyed by a digital data stream, where each frame represents an image,
compnsmg:
a. receiving the sequence of coded video frames at a recording device,
b. determining a frame interval between presentation of an ith coded
frame of the sequence and an (i+l)th coded frame of the sequence,
c. at the recording device, calculating a stream time stamp,
independently of a system clock of the recording device, for the ith coded
frame,
d. at the recording device, calculating a stream time stamp,
independently of the system clock of the recording device, for the (i+l)th
coded video frame based on the stream time stamp for the ith coded video
frame and the frame interval determined in step b; and
e. saving the (i+l)th coded video frame and the stream time stamp for
the (i+l)th coded video frame in a relational database comprising a content
table stored in a content file and an index table stored in an index file.
REJECTION
Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 14--16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Salomons et al.
(WO 2004/056126, published July 1, 2004) ("Salomons") and Bassali et al.
(US 2011/0179356 Al, published July 21, 2011) ("Bassali").
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 14--16, 18, and
19 in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We have
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised
2
Appeal2017-004380
Application 13/794,715
in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have made, but chose
not to make, in the Briefs are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of error. We agree with and
adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts and conclusions as set
forth in the Answer (Ans. 7-12) and in the Action from which this appeal
was taken (Final Act. 3-7). We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Salomons teaches all of
the recited limitations except "saving the (i+l)th coded video frame and the
stream time stamp for the (i+l)th coded video frame in a relational database
comprising a content table stored in a content file and an index table stored
in an index file," for which the Examiner relied on Bassali. Final Act. 3---6
(citing Bassali Figs. 2 and 3, i-fi-127, 31-36, 40, and 58-59); Ans. 7-9. The
Examiner also found that Bassali teaches storing contents on a device in
"one or more databases." Ans. 9 (citing Bassali i180).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Bassali does not teach
the recited "relational database" because "relational database" is a well-
known term of art and should be given its ordinary and customary meaning.
See App. Br. 7. Appellants also argue the Specification does not define the
term "relational database." Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants do not identify the
ordinary meaning of "relational database," but cite to a textbook that states
"relational databases are 'based on the relational data model,"' and have a
logical structure made up of "nothing but a collection of 'relations."' App.
Br. 8 (citing Jan L. Harrington, Relational Database Design and
3
Appeal2017-004380
Application 13/794,715
Implementation: Clearly Explained, 3d ed. Elsevier/Morgan Kaufmann,
2009, pages xv, 85-87, 411).
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of error. Paragraphs 17 and
30 of Appellants' Specification describe "a relational data base comprising a
content table and an index table." See Ans. 8. To the extent Appellants'
arguments are based solely on their proffered textbook definition of
"relational database" (see Reply Br. 3 (citing App. Br. 7-8)), such arguments
do not preclude a broader reasonable definition based on other sources
supporting the Examiner's interpretation. See, e.g., In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("Absent an express definition in their
specification, the fact that appellants can point to definitions or usages that
conform to their interpretation does not make the PTO' s definition
unreasonable when the PTO can point to other sources that support its
interpretation.").
We agree with the Examiner that the "relational database" described
in the Specification is broad enough to encompass the structure taught in
Bassali, where a media content instance file 314 and index data file 316 are
recorded for each video program. The Examiner's interpretation is
consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of "relational
database," which is "[a] database in which the data are organized and
accessed according to relations." IBM DICTIONARY OF COMPUTING
567 (10th ed. 1994). The same dictionary defines "relation," in pertinent
part, as "[i]n a relational database, a set of entity occurrences that have the
same attributes." Id. Appellants have not persuaded us that the data in
Bassali are not organized or accessed according to relations or are not a set
of entity occurrences that have the same attributes. Moreover, Appellants
4
Appeal2017-004380
Application 13/794,715
have not presented persuasive argument or objective evidence to show the
database in Bassali is not a logical structure made up of "nothing but a
collection of 'relations,"' as the Harrington textbook describes. Thus, we
are not persuaded the Examiner erred even in light of the definition of
"relational database" presented by Appellants.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Salomons and Bassali teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations of claim 1.
Appellants next contend Salomons teaches away from "saving the
(i+l)th coded video frame and the stream time stamp for the (i+l)th coded
video frame in a relational database comprising a content table stored in a
content file and an index table stored in an index file." App. Br. 10.
Appellants argue that, unlike the second encoder 420 in Salomons, the
claimed index table stored in an index file is separated from, and not locked
to, the content table stored in a content file. Id. (citing Salomons pp. 10-11).
Appellants' "teaching away" argument is not persuasive because
Appellants have not identified where Salomons actually criticizes, discredits,
or otherwise discourages the disputed limitation. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d
1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004); DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor
Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("A reference does not
teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an
alternative invention but does not 'criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage' investigation into the invention claimed" (citing Fulton)).
Moreover, in the absence of persuasive rebuttal evidence by Appellants, on
the record before us, we agree with the Examiner that the disputed limitation
of claim 1 is directed to the recording process, while the cited locking
5
Appeal2017-004380
Application 13/794,715
functionality in Salomons is directed to the playback process and has no
effect on how the video frames and the timestamps for them are stored
during recording. See Ans. 9--10.
Appellants next contend that modifying the system of Salomons,
which requires "locking its time-base to the incoming vsyncs," with Bassili's
teaching of a system that supports saving a coded video frame and a stream
time stamp in a content table stored in a content file and an index table
stored in an index file, would change the principle of operation of the
Salomons system. See App. Br. 11-12.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. Appellants have presented
insufficient persuasive argument or objective evidence to show how
modifying the cited teachings of Salomons with those of Bassali, as
proposed by the Examiner, would affect Salomons' principle of operation.
See id. It is well settled that "a determination of obviousness based on
teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical
substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (citations omitted). Nor is the test for obviousness whether a
secondary reference's features can be bodily incorporated into the structure
of the primary reference. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. The Supreme Court
has held that "analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Here, Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner's
finding that, in the proposed combination, Salomons' principle of operation
would not change when combined with Bassali. See Ans. 11-12. Nor have
6
Appeal2017-004380
Application 13/794,715
Appellants provided persuasive evidence that combining the cited teachings
would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill
in the art," or that such a combination would have "represented an
unobvious step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, we find the Examiner
provides "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support
the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006); see Final Act. 5.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as the Examiner's § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 12 and 16, which Appellant argues are patentable for
similar reasons. App. Br. 9. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of
dependent claims 3, 4, 14, 15, 18, and 19, not argued separately. Id.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 14--16,
18, and 19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7