Ex Parte Schmidt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 13, 2014

11423946 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANDREAS SCHMIDT, NORBERT SCHWAGMANN, and
ACHIM LUFT
____________

Appeal 2012-006576
Application 11/423,946
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 20–25, 28–33, 35–37, and 39–41. Claims 1–19, 26,
27, 34, and 38 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b),
and we affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is a communication device with a transport
protocol unit that generates a transport protocol message that includes
control information for controlling playback processing of received data.
See generally Abstract; Spec. 9, 11–12.

Appeal 2012-006576
Application 11/423,946

2
Claim 39 is illustrative:
39. A communication device comprising:
a processor; and
a memory comprising a set of instructions that when executed
by the processor causes:
a source coding unit to source code data to be
transmitted; and
a transport protocol unit, coupled to the source coding
unit, to generated at least one transport protocol message, the at least one
transport protocol message including control information for controlling a
playback processing of data source decoded from the source-coded data in a
communication device receiving the transport protocol message.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 20–25, 28–33, 35–37, and 39–41 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kikuchi (US 7,010,032 B1; Mar. 7,
2006) and Mittal (US 2004/0264452 A1; Dec. 30, 2004). Ans. 4–14.1

CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Kikuchi’s communication device has every
recited element of claim 39 including a transport protocol unit to generate at
least one transport protocol message. Ans. 5. Although the Examiner
acknowledges that Kikuchi’s transport protocol message lacks control

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed August 9,
2011 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed November 30, 2011
(“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed January 30, 2012 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2012-006576
Application 11/423,946

3
information for controlling playback processing data as claimed, the
Examiner cites Mittal as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim
would have been obvious. Ans. 5, 14–16.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s reliance on Mittal is flawed
because Mittal’s embedded control information is intended only to control
the transmission of data packets between communication devices—not to
control playback processing of received data as claimed. App. Br. 5–7;
Reply Br. 1–2.

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 39 by finding
that Kikuchi and Mittal collectively would have taught or suggested at least
one transport protocol message including control information for controlling
a playback processing of data source decoded from the source-coded data in
a communication device receiving the message?

ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that the Examiner’s findings from Kikuchi are
undisputed, as is the cited references’ combinability. Rather, this dispute
turns on the Examiner’s reliance on Mittal, and in particular, whether Mittal
teaches controlling playback processing of received data as claimed.
On this record, we see no error in the Examiner’s position in this
regard. First, the term “playback processing” is not defined in the
Specification, unlike other terms. See, e.g., Spec. 5:5–12, 28–32 (defining
“source coding unit” and “source decoding unit”); Spec. 6:33–7:1 (defining
“transport protocol unit”). Although Appellants cite various passages from
Appeal 2012-006576
Application 11/423,946

4
the present application’s published application as explaining the recited
“playback processing” (App. Br. 6),2 these passages merely provide
examples of such processing, such as changing volume or pitch of audio
information, or inserting or removing special effects. Although this
explanation informs our understanding of “playback processing,” it does not
so limit our interpretation of the term that encompasses a variety of
processes related to reproducing real-time data as the Examiner indicates.
See Ans. 16.
As such, we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Mittal’s
communicated control information that, once extracted by a mobile station,
is not only used to indicate start and stop (i.e., pause operations) when real-
time data is communicated, but also to control subsequent operations of the
mobile station. Mittal, ¶¶ 37-39.3 To this end, Mittal populates an “INFO”
field with particular values (1 to 4), the first three of which the receiving
station uses to become aware of aspects of the sending station, including
pausing or stopping data transfer. Mittal ¶¶ 18, 22, 44–45. Even assuming,
without deciding, that this control information is used solely to control data

2 Appellants’ citations from paragraphs 44, 53, 55, 83, and 89 of the
published application correspond to passages in the present application as
follows: (1) Spec. 9:22–27; (2) Spec. 11:1–9; (3) Spec. 11:16–29; (4) Spec.
12:12–21; and (5) Spec. 19:23–20:5.
3 Mittal’s Figures 1–14, as well as the figure reproduced on the front page,
pertain to an underground well borehole structure and, therefore, are
inconsistent with the text of the patent in the Title, Abstract, and
Specification pertaining to embedding control information into packet-
formatted data. This inconsistency is further highlighted by Mittal’s
referring to only four figures—not fourteen—in the Brief Description of the
Drawings section. See Mittal ¶¶ 27–30. Despite this inconsistency, both the
Examiner and Appellant do not rely on these figures, but rather the
document’s text in connection with their respective positions.
Appeal 2012-006576
Application 11/423,946

5
packet transmission as Appellants contend (Reply Br. 2), it nonetheless at
least suggests controlling at least some processing of received data, for the
receiver must process the pausing and stopping of transmitted real-time data.
See Mittal ¶¶ 18, 37–39, 44–45. That Mittal’s control information provides
to the receiving station the capability to start, stop, and pause the data
packet communication in paragraph 18 only further bolsters the Examiner’s
position that Mittal at least suggests providing the receiving station control
over the real-time data that it receives. Ans. 18.
Although Mittal does not say whether this pausing and stopping real-
time data transfer pertains to playback, namely reproducing sound and/or
images under the Examiner’s definition (Ans. 15), the Examiner does not
rely solely on Mittal in this regard, but also Kikuchi for teaching such
playback. See id. (citing Kikuchi, col. 17, ll. 42–50). So to the extent that
Appellants contend that Mittal alone does not teach the recited playback
processing, such individual attacks do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s
position that is not based on Mittal alone, but rather the cited references’
collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986). In light of Kikuchi, the Examiner’s position that Mittal’s
pausing and stopping real-time data communication teaches playback
processing has a rational basis when audio and video data is so
communicated, such as streaming.
Nor do Appellants persuasively rebut the Examiner’s position that
Mittal’s receiving device is at least capable of controlling playback
processing as claimed. Ans. 16. As noted above, not only does Mittal’s
embedded control information indicate paused and stopped real-time data
transfers, including providing the receiving device the capability to start,
Appeal 2012-006576
Application 11/423,946

6
stop, and pause those transfers, but the control information also is used to
control subsequent operations of the mobile station. Mittal ¶¶ 18, 37. To
this end, when the INFO field value is four, application-dependent data is
represented so that the receiving station acts with respect to the packet’s
data. Mittal ¶¶ 44–45. This additional receiver control capability at least
suggests controlling playback processing of received data, or at least the
capability to do so, particularly when considered in light of Kikuchi. To the
extent that Appellants contend that Mittal is incapable of such control,
Appellants provide no persuasive evidence on this record to prove such
incapability.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 39, and claims 20–25, 28–33, 35–37, 40, and 41 not argued separately
with particularity.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 20–25, 28–33, 35–37,
and 39–41 under § 103.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 20–25, 28–33, 35–37, and
39–41 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
lv