Ex Parte Ramaswamy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 11, 2016

10450800 (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
10/450,800 06/16/2003
24498 7590 05/13/2016
Robert D, Shedd, Patent Operations
THOMSON Licensing LLC
4 Research Way
3rd Floor
Princeton, NJ 08543
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kumar Ramaswamy
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.
PU010235 5309
EXAMINER
VO,TUNGT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/13/2016 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):
uspto@technicolor.com
pat. verlangieri@technicolor.com
russell. smith@technicolor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KUMAR RAMASWAMY and ANDREW DENYS HACKETT
Appeal2014-009029
Application 10/450,800
Technology Center 2400
Before CATHERINE SHIANG, JOYCE CRAIG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-3, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to transmitting digital and audio files.
See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for providing a dynamic error recovery mechanism for
transmitting media objects, the steps comprising the steps of:
Appeal2014-009029
Application 10/450,800
parsing a media object into a transport stream of program packets;
inserting a control packet into said transport stream corresponding to a
predefined quantity of program packets, said predefined quantity of program
packets defines a sequence of program packets of a predefined quantity
greater than one packet;
interleaving an additional control packet into said transport stream
after determining an additional sequence of program packets of said
predefined quantity;
transmitting said predefined sequence of program packets
corresponding to said control packet;
retransmitting all of the program packets in said predefined sequence
of program packets corresponding to said control packet, said transmission is
in response to a command requesting said transmission;
said control packet has a counter that is incremented in the payload of
said control packet, as to define a new sequence of program packets;
said retransmission step of said sequence of program packets is
transmitted by at least one of a satellite transmission and a back channel; and
said command is generated in response to when a receiver determines
a gap in an incremented sequence of control packets.
Reference and Rejection
Huizer us 5,875,303 Feb.23, 1999
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huizer.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments,
and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the
Examiner erred in finding Huizer teaches "said control packet has a counter
that is incremented in the payload of said control packet, as to define a new
2
Appeal2014-009029
Application 10/450,800
sequence ofprogram packets," as recited in independent claim 1 (emphases
added). 1
The Examiner finds:
[Huizer's] col. 4, lines 2-3, note the continuity_counter is
continuous for all packets of the transport stream. The
disclosure would obviously suggest that the counter counts
every packets includes the control packet in the payload. Huizer
mentioned the ISO/IEC 13 818-1 that shows the MPEG packet
stream, wherein the MPEG packet stream has counter for
counting a new sequence of program packets, note the leading
fields in the Transport Stream packet up to and including the
continuity_counter fields[.]
Ans. 3--4 (emphasis added).
Appellants contend:
App. Br. 7.
Huizer's above teaching [col. 4, lines 2-3] simply indicates that
a counter is provided for "all" packets of the transport stream,
where the counter is located in the header of all such packets. In
contrast, the invention of claim 1 has the counter only adjusted
for each sequence of a predetermined quantity of packets
(which is greater than one) and such a counter is in the payload,
not the header of the packet.
The Examiner does not directly respond to Appellants' arguments, but
largely repeats the previous finding. See Ans. 8.
Huizer's col. 4, lines 2-3 states: "The continuity_counter is
continuous for all packets of the transport stream."
We agree with Appellants that the cited Huizer portion does not teach
the disputed claim limitation. In fact, the Examiner correctly states "[ t ]he
disclosure would obviously suggest that the counter counts every
1 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
3
Appeal2014-009029
Application 10/450,800
packet[ sic]" (Ans. 3), not "incremented . . . as to define a new sequence of
program packets," as required by claim 1.
Further, the Examiner's assertion that "Huizer mentioned the ISO/IEC
13 818-1 that shows the MPEG packet stream, wherein the MPEG packet
stream has counter for counting a new sequence of program packets, note the
leading fields in the Transport Stream packet up to and including the
continuity_counter fields" (Ans. 3--4) is not supported by the record, as the
Examiner does not cite any evidence for the assertion.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims 2 and 3
for similar reasons.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3.
REVERSED
4