Ex Parte Nemiroff

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

12250317 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/250,317 10/13/2008
43471 7590
ARRIS Enterprises, LLC
Legal Dept - Docketing
101 Tournament Drive
HORSHAM, PA 19044
09/02/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert S. Nemiroff
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.
BCS04838 3563
EXAMINER
ABYANEH, ALIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2437
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 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):
arris.docketing@arris.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT S. NEMIROFF
Appeal2013-010958
Application 12/250,317
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and JEFFREY A.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2013-010958
Application 12/250,317
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal, with emphases added to key
portions of the claim at issue, read as follows:
1. A multi-rate encoding device comprising:
at least one encoder set including multiple encoders
receiving a same video source stream and being configured to
transmit multiple encoded streams of the same video source
stream at different bit-rates;
wherein each encoder set is configured to
align the same video source stream among the
multiple encoders on a same unencoded picture of the
same video source stream,
align the multiple encoded streams on a
corresponding boundary of a same encoded GOP service,
and
transmit the encoded group of pictures ("GOP'')
service set in alignment;
the multiple encoders of the at least one encoder set
including
a first encoder receiving the same video source
stream and encoding the same video source stream at a
first bit rate of the different bit-rates; and
2
Appeal2013-010958
Application 12/250,317
a second encoder receiving the same video source
stream and encoding the same video source stream at a
second bit rate of the different bit-rates.
The Examiner's Rejections1
(1) Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 21-23 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mizoguchi (US
2004/0086051 Al; published May 6, 2004) in view ofBoroczky (US
6,859,496 Bl; issued Feb. 22, 2005). Final Act. 6-9.
(2) Claims 4 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mizoguchi in view of Boroczky, and further in view of
Jowett (US 2008/0212471 Al; published Sept. 4, 2008). Final Act. 10.
(3) Claims 9-15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mizoguchi in view of Boroczky, and further in view of
Gordon (US 6,324,217 Bl; issued Nov. 27, 2001). Final Act. 11-12.
(4) Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mizoguchi in view ofBoroczky, Gordon, and Jowett.
Final Act. 13.
1 The Examiner rejected claims 1--4 as being non-statutory under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101, but has withdrawn this rejection (Ans. 4). Therefore, the§ 101
rejection is not before us, and we do not further address the§ 101 rejection
in our decision herein.
3
Appeal2013-010958
Application 12/250,317
Appellant ;s Contentions2
Appellant contends (Br. 5) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1, 5, and 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a), because, inter alia, Mizoguchi and
Boroczky fail to show or suggest aligning Group of Pictures before and after
encoding.
Reply Brief
No Reply Brief has been presented. Therefore, Appellant has not
disputed the Examiner's articulated reasoning and findings found at pages
5---6 of the Answer, citing paragraph 43 of Appellant's Specification and
portions of Boroczky's columns 6, 8, and 9 to explain the similarities
between Appellant's disclosed invention and Boroczky's disclosure.
Principal Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 5-8), the
following principal issue is presented on appeal:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-24 as being unpatentable
over the base combination of Mizoguchi and Boroczky because the
combination fails to teach or suggest aligning video streams and transmitting
the encoded group of pictures service set in alignment, as recited in
representative independent claim 1?
2 Appellant primarily presents arguments as to claim 1 (Br. 5---6), and asserts
that independent claims 5 and 21 contain similar features as claim 1 and are,
therefore, patentable for the same reasons (Br. 6). Independent claims 1, 5,
and 21 each recite features relating to the alignment of video streams. We
select claim 1 as representative of the group of claims 1-3, 5-8, and 21-23
rejected for obviousness over Mizoguchi and Boroczky. Appellant relies on
the arguments made as to claim 1 as to the remaining three obviousness
rejections of claims 4, 9-20, and 24.
4
Appeal2013-010958
Application 12/250,317
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 6-13; Ans.
4--9) in light of Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 5-8) that the
Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's conclusions. With
regard to representative independent claim 1, we adopt as our own ( 1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken (Final Act. 6-7), and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 4--8) in response to Appellant's
Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner,
and we provide the following for emphasis.
With regard to representative claim 1, we agree with the Examiner
(Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 4--8) that Boroczky, and thus the combination of
Mizoguchi and Boroczky, teaches or suggests the alignment features recited
in claim 1. We also agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4) that the specific
alignment features argued by Appellant are not found in claim 1 as argued.
In other words, Appellant's arguments (Br. 5-6) are not commensurate in
scope with the language of claim 1. Furthermore, we agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 5) that Appellant's alignment described in paragraph 43 of
the Specification supports the Examiner's interpretation that the alignment
features recited in claim 1 are met by the disclosure of Boroczky (Ans. 6
citing Boroczky, Abs.; col. 6, 11. 54--65; col. 8, 11. 18--40; and col. 9, 11. 25-
51 ). Although Boroczky does not use the word "alignment," we agree with
the Examiner (Ans. 4--8) that Boroczky discloses performing the same
function to the extent this feature is recited in claim 1. Appellant has not
shown otherwise.
5
Appeal2013-010958
Application 12/250,317
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
representative claim 1, as well as claims 2, 3, 5-8, and 21-23 grouped
therewith as being obvious over the combination of Mizoguchi and
Boroczky. For similar reasons, and because Appellant relies on the
arguments presented as to claim 1 in arguing independent claims 5 and 21,
we also sustain the remaining three obviousness rejections of claims 4, 9-20,
and 24, which depend from independent claims 1, 5, and 21, respectively.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-24 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-24 are affirmed.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§§ 41.50(±), 41.52(b) (2013).
AFFIRMED
6