Ex Parte Park et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 15, 2004

09432426 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 15, 2004)

1 Application for patent filed November 2, 1999, entitled
"Video Coding and Decoding Methods," which claims the foreign
filing priority benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119 of Republic of
Korea Application 98-46824, filed November 2, 1998.
- 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and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 25
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte DONG-SEEK PARK
and KOOK-YEOL YOO

Appeal No. 2003-1523
Application 09/432,4261

HEARD: December 11, 2003

Before BARRETT, GROSS, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the final rejection of claims 1 and 31. Claims 2-30 and 32-42
are allowed.
Appeal No. 2003-1523
Application 09/432,426
- 2 -
We reverse.
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to a video coding and decoding method.
During the decoding process, status information indicating an
"error profile" of the communication channel is extracted and
transmitted to the encoder. The encoder adaptively adds
redundancy information into the video data stream in a layer
configuration based on the channel status information.
Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A video coding method implemented in a video data
transceiver for transmitting and receiving video data
through a communications channel, the method comprising the
steps of:
receiving channel status information indicating an
error profile of the communication channel; and
adaptively adding redundancy information into data
packets, the data packets being syntax divided in a layer
configuration based on the channel status information.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Watanabe et al. (Watanabe) 6,310,897 October 30, 2001
(§ 102(e) date May 1, 1998)
Claims 1 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Watanabe.
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 8) and the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 16) (pages referred to as "EA__")
Appeal No. 2003-1523
Application 09/432,426
- 3 -
for a statement of the examiner's rejection, and to the brief
(Paper No. 15) (pages referred to as "Br__") and reply brief
(Paper No. 17) (pages referred to as "RBr__") for a statement of
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Claim 1
Claim 1 is directed to a video coding method that includes
the step of "receiving channel status information indicating an
error profile of the communication channel."
Appellants argue that Watanabe does not teach "receiving
channel status information indicating an error profile of the
communication channel," as recited in claim 1 (Br3-4; RBr2).
A section 103 analysis begins with a key legal question:
What is the invention claimed? Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg.
Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
In particular, we must interpret the term "error profile." We
have not been successful in finding a formal definition of "error
profile" in a technical dictionary or on the Internet, although
the term is frequently used. Appellants' specification shows
three CDMA "error profiles" in Table 1 at page 8. The error
profiles have parameters of Doppler Frequency (Hz), Average BER
(Bit-Error Rate), and Average Burst Length (Bits). Thus, the
"error profile" can be defined as the characterization (profile)
of the type and magnitude of channel error statistics, which is
Appeal No. 2003-1523
Application 09/432,426
2 See Mark Cummings, Wireless Infrastructure: Voice-over-IP
architectures migrate to wireless, September 11, 2001,
URL: http://www/commsdesign.com/story/OEG20010911S0018:
The error profiles of wireless systems generally differ from
wired systems in that the errors are very likely to come in
bursts. For example, when a single signal splits and
follows two or more paths to the other node, arriving at
different times (known as multipathing), out-of-order packet
and multiple-packet errors can result. Another effect,
fading, can produce long gaps in information streams, and
Doppler shifts can disrupt timing and sequencing. In fact,
recent research indicates that even stationary wireless
systems in metropolitan areas experience Doppler shifts
because of the movement of objects in their vicinity. In
addition, long distances between nodes in wireless systems-
such as in direct satellite systems-are subject to echoing
errors and special problems with gaps in information
streams. Furthermore, all these types of errors can occur
in combination.
- 4 -
consistent with the discussions we found on the Internet. 2 Thus,
the claimed "channel status information indicating an error
profile of the communication channel" would be one of the three
error profiles, Error 1, Error 2, or Error 3. An "error profile"
must be something different than just an "error" or the word
"profile" would be given no effect. "All words in a claim must
be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against
the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494,
496 (CCPA 1970).
The examiner does not interpret or discuss the meaning of
"error profile." The examiner finds that Watanabe discloses
detecting an error on the decoding side in the error check
circuit 125 of Fig. 2, which causes output of a retransmission
Appeal No. 2003-1523
Application 09/432,426
- 5 -
request, referring to column 11, lines 1-3 (EA3-4; EA5), and
states that "the channel information status indicating an error
profile is considered as the part in error that is detected by
the error check circuit (125 of fig. 2) of the decoding side"
(EA6). Therefore, the examiner interprets the "error" to be an
"error profile" and the retransmission request to be "channel
status information indicating an error profile of the
communication channel." Based on our claim interpretation, we
conclude that this is an error. An "error" is not an "error
profile" which characterizes the type and magnitude of the
errors. Furthermore, while a retransmission request may indicate
that an error occurred, it does not indicate anything about the
"error profile," i.e., about the type and magnitude of the
errors. Accordingly, this basis for the rejection is reversed.
The examiner also states (EA5):
It is well recognized [that] the H.263 encoder is well known
in the art for transmitting or receiving the channel status
information indicat[ing] the error profile from the decoder
(note the appellant/applicant's specification shows the
H.263 encoder (102 of fig. 1) that has been used to receive
the channel status information). According to the
appellant/applicant's specification, the H.263 encoder is
[sic, as] disclosed in Watanabe must have the same function
of receiving channel status information indicat[ing] an
error profile of the communication channel as well.
Appellants respond that many different techniques have been
proposed for H.263 error resilience, but no technique had yet
been adopted at the time of filing the application and, thus, the
Appeal No. 2003-1523
Application 09/432,426
- 6 -
fact that both the present invention and Watanabe disclose the
H.263 scheme does not lead to the conclusion that the present
invention and Watanabe disclose the same H.263 scheme (RBr3).
We agree with appellants. It appears that the examiner has
assumed that H.263 inherently provides for receiving channel
status information indicating an error profile of the
communication channel, so that the mention of H.263 in Watanabe
(col. 1, line 38) suggests receiving error profile information.
The examiner provides no evidence that the H.263 standard calls
for receiving error profile information. Since appellants are
arguing the limitation of "receiving channel status information
indicating an error profile of the communication channel," it is
clear that appellants do not think this is part of the H.263
standard. This alternative basis for the rejection is reversed.
For the reasons stated above, the rejection of claim 1 is
reversed.
Claim 31
Claim 31 recites a video decoding method, including the step
of "inputting a video bitstream to which redundancy information
has been adaptively added to data packets based on channel status
information indicating an error profile of the communication
channel" (emphasis added). For the reasons stated in connection
with claim 1, we find that Watanabe does not teach or suggest
Appeal No. 2003-1523
Application 09/432,426
- 7 -
encoding based on channel status information indicating an "error
profile" of the communications channel. Thus, Watanabe does not
render obvious the subject matter of claim 31. The rejection of
claim 31 is reversed.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1 and 31 is reversed.
REVERSED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2003-1523
Application 09/432,426
- 8 -
SUGHRUE MION ZINN MACPEAK & SEAS
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20037-3202