Ex Parte Park et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2016

12964905 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016)

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.
12/964,905 12/10/2010 Sung-bum PARK Q121836 5667
23373 7590 12/30/2016
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
EXAMINER
PARIKH, DAKSHESH D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2016 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
sughrue@sughrue.com
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUNG-BUM PARK, HAE-YOUNG JUN, and
DONG-SEEK PARK
Appeal 2016-000296
Application 12/964,9051
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—22, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Technology
The application relates to selecting a codec for compressing video.
Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations
at issue emphasized:
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-000296
Application 12/964,905
1. A method of transmitting compressed at least one video
content, the method comprising:
transmitting a codec selection request frame prior to
compression of the at least one video content, the codec selection
request frame comprising an identifier of at least one codec
among a plurality of codecs to be used for the compression of the
at least one video content and requesting approval of a use of the
at least one codec among the plurality of codecs;
receiving a codec selection response frame, the codec
selection response frame comprising at least one result
information indicating whether the use of the at least one codec
among the plurality of codecs is approved', and
transmitting a video content frame comprising the at least
one video content compressed by the approved at least one codec
based on the codec selection response frame, wherein the video
content frame further comprises frame type information
indicating a type of compression applied to the at least one video
content in the video content frame.
Rejections
Claims 1—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
the combination of Kim et al. (US 2009/0154556 Al; June 18, 2009) and
Abrol et al. (US 2007/0058794 Al; Mar. 15, 2007). Final Act. 11.
Claims 1,11, and 21 stand rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting over the combination of Application No.
13/030,590 and Kim. Final Act. 6. “Appellant defers response to this
provisional rejection until one of the present application and the copending
application are in condition for allowance.” App. Br. 12. Accordingly, we
do not address the provisional double patenting rejection here.2
2 See Ex parte Jerg, No. 2011-000044, 2012 WL 1375142 at *3 (BPAI Apr.
13, 2012) (informative) (“Panels have the flexibility to reach or not reach
provisional obviousness-type double-patenting rejections.”); Ex parte
Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
2
Appeal 2016-000296
Application 12/964,905
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Kim and Abrol
teaches or suggests “transmitting a codec selection request frame prior to
compression . . . requesting approval of a use of the at least one codec” and
“receiving a codec selection response frame . . . indicating whether the use
of the at least one codec ... is approved,” as recited in claim 1 ?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend “neither Kim nor Abrol. . . suggests requesting
approval for an identified codec,. . . much less receiving approval for an
identified codec from a receiving device.” App. Br. 8. “Instead, Kim . . .
identifies a codec that is always used for encoding, regardless of the codec
player’s preference.” Id. Similarly, “no terminal in Abrol requests or
receives approval on how to perform encoding. Rather, each receiving
terminal in Abrol independently and unilaterally determines how to receive
data.” Reply Br. 7.
The Examiner agrees that Kim “does not explicitly disclose
‘transmitting a codec selection request frame prior to compression’” and
instead relies on a combination with Abrol. Ans. 18—19. Abrol teaches
terminal A and terminal B each sending a “NonStandard request message” to
the other that “carries the video and audio capabilities” for each terminal.
Abrol H42, 41, 44, 45. “Terminal A thus initializes its audio/video
decoders based on the video and audio capabilities in the composed
NonStandard request message sent to terminal B . . . and initializes its
audio/video encoders based on the video and audio capabilities in the
NonStandard request message received from terminal B.” Id. 144.
3
Appeal 2016-000296
Application 12/964,905
We agree with Appellants the Examiner has not shown the
combination of Kim and Abrol teaches or suggests the disputed limitations
of claim 1. The disputed limitations require three steps: (1) transmitting a
request for approval of a codec, (2) receiving a response whether that request
is approved, and (3) transmitting video compressed by the approved codec
based on the response. Abrol, however, does not request approval. Instead,
Abrol teaches a terminal sends a NonStandard request message specifying
the capabilities (or codecs) for receiving data. The response to such a
NonStandard request message is not “approval” but instead compressed
video where the codec used for compression is picked based on information
in the NonStandard request message. Abrol 144 (“Upon receiving the
NonStandard request message . . ., terminal A knows that terminal B is ready
to receive and can send out audio/video data as soon as possible.”). This
fails to teach requesting approval, receiving approval, or transmitting data
based on the approval. Kim does not remedy this deficiency because we
agree with Appellants that Kim teaches the identified codec is always used
regardless of the player’s preference. Kim 144; App. Br. 8. In Kim, if the
recipient does not have the codec, the sender simply transmits the codec in
addition to the video. Kim 144. Thus, there is no “requesting approval of a
use of the at least one codec” because Kim always uses the same codec. The
Examiner has not sufficiently shown how a combination of Abrol and Kim
maps to the disputed claim limitations and overcomes the deficiencies
identified by Appellants.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of claim 1 or claims 2—22, which contain commensurate limitations.
4
Appeal 2016-000296
Application 12/964,905
DECISION
For the reasons discussed above, we reverse the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
5