Ex Parte Pope et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 12, 201410548121 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte STEVE POPE, DEREK ROBERTS, DAVID J. RIDDOCH, and DAVID CLARKE ____________________ Appeal 2011-012304 Application 10/548,121 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JAMES P. CALVE, and LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 15 and 17-25. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to a data transmission with constant data rate. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for forming data received from a data source into frames, the method comprising: forming a frame for transmission over a data link according to a protocol in which data is carried as variable length data frames that can differ in bit length and in which once transmission of the data frame begun the entirety of the data frame must be transmitted, and in which the data is to be transmitted at no less than a determined data rate by: (a) including in the frame traffic data formed from data received for transmission from the data source; (b) determining that insufficient data received for transmission from the data source is available to transmit the frame at the determined data rate; and (c) responsive to that determination including in the frame padding data, the padding data being of a predetermined format distinguishable from the traffic data. REJECTIONS Claims 1-15 and 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goldman (US 5,535,216, iss. Jul. 9, 1996) and Lyons (US (6,330,286 B1, iss. Dec. 11, 2001). Ans. 4. OPINION In rejecting each of the independent claims involved in this appeal, claims 1, 13, and 25, the Examiner relies on Lyons as teaching the recited “protocol in which data is carried as variable length data frames that can Appeal 2011-012304 Application 10/548,121 3 differ in bit length.” Ans. 5-6, 9-10. To meet this limitation, the Examiner cites a disclosure in Lyons that states, “it is entirely possible to convert a Constant Bitrate (CBR) bitstream to a Variable Bitrate (VBR) bitstream by detecting the padding and stuffing needed to create a CBR.” Id. at 5, citing Lyons, col. 13, ll. 4-10. As Appellants correctly point out, this disclosure refers to “a bitstream in which a throughput of bits varies. It does not teach a bitstream in which variable length data frames can differ in bit lengths; for example, a higher bitrate can send the same length frames at a faster rate.” See Reply Br. 3. The Examiner has not explained why a teaching of converting a constant rate bitstream to a variable rate bitstream teaches “variable length data frames differing in bit length.” The Examiner has not established that variation of a bit transfer rate necessarily requires variation of a bit length. Furthermore, the Examiner has not established why incorporating the cited portion of Lyons into Goldman would result in “a protocol in which data is carried [in such frames],” or “forming a frame for transmission over a data link according to [such a protocol],” as recited in independent claims 1 and 25. The Examiner provides the same analysis of claim 13, which contains a similar limitation. The Examiner does not cite to any other evidence to account for this deficiency. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. REVERSED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation