Ex Parte Pasqualino et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 18, 2014

12034327 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2014)

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.
12/034,327 02/20/2008 Christopher Pasqualino 106861-0357 7933
121312 7590 07/18/2014
Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation
3000 K Street N.W, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20007-5109
EXAMINER
MEHRA, INDER P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/18/2014 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 CHRISTOPHER PASQUALINO,
JEFFREY S. BAUCH, and STEPHEN PETILLI
____________

Appeal 2012-002414
Application 12/034,327
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. EVANS, and
CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants
1
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1–21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1
According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Broadcom Corporation
(App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2012-002414
Application 12/034,327

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to increasing digital data
capacity or throughput of a digital video link (Spec. ¶ 3).
Independent claims 1 and 16 are illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal and read as follows:
1. A processing system for increasing the digital data
capacity of a digital video communications link, comprising:
at least one assembly device that assembles a plurality of
digital data streams into a single digital data stream;
a multiplexer that multiplexes the single digital data
stream with a line of video data forming an aggregate digital
data stream; and
at least one transmitter that transmits said aggregate
digital data stream and low bandwidth information, said low
bandwidth information being transmitted during blanking
periods associated with the aggregate digital data stream.

16. A method for increasing the digital data capacity of a
digital video communications link, comprising:
decreasing the duration of a blanking interval associated
with a line of video data to a duration less than industry
standard blanking intervals;
combining a digital data stream with a line of video data;
and transmitting said digital data stream and low bandwidth
information.

Applied Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Ryan US 5,504,815 Apr. 2, 1996
Cooper US 5,675,388 Oct. 7, 1997
Richards US 6,388,661 B1 May 14, 2002
Flickinger US 2002/0083441 A1 June 27, 2002
Appeal 2012-002414
Application 12/034,327

3
Wu US 6,493,005 B1 Dec. 10, 2002
Pages US 6,757,300 B1 June 29, 2004

Rejections
Claims 1–7, 9–11, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Wu, Flickinger, and Cooper (Ans. 6–14).
Claims 8, 12, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wu, Flickinger, Cooper, and Pages (Ans. 14–16).
Claims 16, 17, 19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wu, Ryan, and Cooper (Ans. 16–19).
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wu, Ryan, Cooper, and Pages (Ans. 20–21).
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wu, Ryan, Cooper, and Richards (Ans. 19–20).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–15
Appellants allege error in the Examiner’s finding that Wu discloses
“at least one assembly device that assembles a plurality of digital data
streams into a single digital data stream,” as recited in independent claim 1
(App. Br. 6). According to Appellants, “Wu at . . . Col. 3, lines 14–20 [sic]
2

merely discusses multiplexing digitized data streams together’. However,

2
The December 8, 2010 Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken
(see App. Br. 1) does not cite “col. 3, 14–20” of Wu, but instead cites
lines 6–9 and 22–29 of column 3 of Wu against the identified limitation of
claim 1 and lines 7–11 and 22–29 of column 3 against the identified
limitation of claim 9 (see Final Office Action 3, 5).
Appeal 2012-002414
Application 12/034,327

4
the foregoing merely results in a plurality of digital data streams, but not the
claimed ‘single data stream’ recited in claim 1.” (Id.)
We are not persuaded of error. Wu teaches that, in the practice of the
MPEG-1 standards, “program signals include digital data of various
programs or program components with their digitized data streams
multiplexed together by parsing them in the time domain into the program
bitstreams” (Wu 3:6–9). Although Wu uses the word “multiplexed” rather
than Appellants’ term “assemble[d],” it is apparent from the context that Wu
is referring to the combination of multiple data streams into a single data
stream for transmission. Wu also teaches, for example, that “[t]he MPEG
standards define structure for multiplexing and synchronizing coded digital
and audio data,” and that “[t]he defined structure provides syntax for the
parsing and synchronizing of the multiplexed stream.” (Wu 3:22–27
(emphasis added)). Wu’s grammatical usage of the singular “stream” to
describe the product of the multiplexing operation is also consistent with
Appellants’ own usage in claim 1, in which a multiplexer multiplexes two
data streams (i.e., “the single digital data stream” and “a line of video data”)
to form an “aggregate digital data stream.”
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that “Wu, column
3, lines 22–29 only refer to audio and digital data, but not video data,” as
recited in claims 1 and 9 (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 4–5). The cited section of
Wu refers to the “MPEG standards,” which, as is also explained by Wu,
refers colloquially to formats for digital video and audio specified by the
Motion Pictures Expert Group (MPEG) chartered by the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) (see, e.g., Wu 2:63–66, 3:13–15).
Column 3, lines 9–10 of Wu, cited by the Examiner, further state that the
Appeal 2012-002414
Application 12/034,327

5
programs whose digitized data streams are multiplexed “include audio and
video frames of data” (emphasis added).
Appellants also allege error in the Examiner’s finding that Wu
discloses “means for accepting video data and audio data and combining
said data into aggregate data that is compatible with a predetermined video
timing standard,” as recited in independent claim 9 (App. Br. 6). According
to Appellants, “Wu at . . . Col. 3, lines 14–20 [sic]
3
merely discusses
multiplexing digitized data streams together’. . . . [T]he foregoing would . . .
not result in the ‘aggregate data that is compatible with a predetermined
video timing standard.’” (Id.)
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. The passages of Wu
cited by the Examiner teach that “[t]he MPEG standards define structure for
multiplexing . . . digital and audio data” and that “[t]he defined structure
provides syntax for . . . timing the information in the bitstreams” (Wu 3:22–
29 (emphasis added)). Because the MPEG standards define the syntax for
timing the information in the multiplexed bitstreams, the resulting bitstreams
(i.e., the “aggregate data” in the parlance of claim 9) would by definition be
compatible with those standards.
For the above reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent claims
1 and 9, as well as the rejection of dependent claims 2–8 and 9–15 not
argued separately by Appellants.
Claims 16–21
With respect to the rejection of claim 16, Appellants argue that
“combining Wu, Flickinger, Ryan and Cooper, would not be obvious
because ‘add[ing] digitalized audio in one form or another in the blanking

3
See footnote 2, supra.
Appeal 2012-002414
Application 12/034,327

6
interval’ [as taught by Cooper] would not allow ‘the picture to “wobble out”
without having to lose any portion of the signal’ [as taught by Ryan]”
(App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 6).
Appellants’ argument does not provide a ground for reversal. Even if
we accept Appellants’ premise that adding audio in the blanking interval
would not allow a picture to wobble out, claim 16 does not recite allowing a
picture to “wobble out.” We are not persuaded of error, either in the
Examiner’s findings that it was known that the duration of the horizontal
blanking interval can be reduced “without having to lose any portion of the
signal thereby” (Ans. 16–17 (citing Ryan 8:4–8)), that audio signals can be
added in the blanking interval of a television video signal (Ans. 17 (citing
Cooper 1:42–44)), and that low bandwidth signals such as samples from a
program audio signal can be transmitted as part of a video signal (Ans. 17
(citing Cooper 3:14–20)), or in the Examiner’s conclusions drawn from
those findings.
In their Reply Brief, Appellants also extend to claim 16 their
argument, addressed in our discussion of claims 1–15 above, that “Wu,
column 3, lines 22–29 only refer to audio and digital data, but not video
data” (Reply Br. 4). For the same reasons as previously stated, we also find
that argument unavailing with respect to claim 16.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 16, as well
as the rejection of dependent claims 17–21 not argued separately by
Appellants.

Appeal 2012-002414
Application 12/034,327

7
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD