Ex Parte Thangaraj et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 1, 2016

11103819 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111103,819 04/12/2005
15650 7590 06/03/2016
THOMAS I HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom)
400 INTERSTATE NORTH PARKWAY SE
SUITE 1500
ATLANTA, GA 30339
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Arul Thangaraj
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.
050227-3810 8772
EXAMINER
DECKER, CASSANDRA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/03/2016 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):
uspatents@tkhr.com
kristen.layton@tkhr.com
ozzie. liggins@tkhr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARUL THANGARAJ, VIJA Y ANAND ARALAGUPPE,
SRINIVASA MOGATHALA PRABHAKARA REDDY, and ARUN RAO
Appeal2014-009396
Application 11/103,819 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 6, 11-13, 18, 19, 22, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, and
34--43. Claims 2, 3, 5, 7-10, 14--17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 29, 31, and 33 have
been cancelled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Broadcom Corporation
(see Appeal Br. 2).
2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to ( 1) Appellants' Specification filed
April 12, 2005 ("Spec."), (2) the Final Action ("Final Act.") mailed
Appeal2014-009396
Application 11/103,819
survnvIARY OF THE TI'-JVENTION
According to Appellants, the application relates to a "system, method,
and apparatus for embedding personal video recorder functions in transport
packets." Spec., Title.
Claims 1, 6, 12, and 22 are independent claims. Claim 1 is
representative and is reproduced with key limitations emphasized below:
1. A method comprising:
providing a stream of transport packets to a video
processor, the transport packets including data corresponding to
a video stream;
generating a transport packet with an indicator in the
transport packet, said indicator indicating that the transport
packet contains at least one command for the video processor;
placing the at least one command in the transport packet,
the at least one command including a trick mode command, the
trick mode command being configured to effect a personal
video recorder function relative to the video stream, the
personal video recorder function comprising at least one of
pause/still, fast forward, rewind, slow forward, slow rewind, or
skip; and
providing the transport packet to the video processor
within the stream of transport packets.
November 14, 2013, (3) the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed May 16,
2014, (4) the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed July 2, 2014, and (5) the
Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed September 2, 2014.
2
Appeal2014-009396
Application 11/103,819
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal:
Takahara et al. ("Takahara")
Boyce et al. ("Boyce")
Reitmeier et al. ("Reitmeier")
Cohen et al. ("Cohen")
Duruoz et al. ("Duruoz")
Boyle
us 5,477,542
us 5,805,762
us 6,057 ,889
us 6,076,094
US 6,487 ,642 B 1
US 2003/0223735 Al
Dec. 19, 1995
Sept. 8, 1998
May 2, 2000
June 13, 2000
Nov. 26, 2002
Dec. 4, 2003
S. Dutta and N. Dimitrova, Smart Video Streams: 1 OJ Uses of the User Data
Field in MPEG, IEEE Proc. of ASILOMAR-29 1462 (1996) (hereinafter
"Dutta").
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Boyce in view of Takahara with support from Dutta and
Duruoz.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Boyce in view of Takahara with support from Dutta and
Duruoz, and further in view of Cohen.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Boyce in view of Takahara with support from Dutta and Duruoz, and
further in view of Boyle.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Boyce in view of Takahara with support from Dutta and Duruoz, and
further in view of Reitmeier.
Claims 6, 11-13, 18, 19, 32, 34, 35, 41, and 42 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Boyce in view of Takahara
with support from Dutta.
3
Appeal2014-009396
Application 11/103,819
Claims 22, 25, 38, 39, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Takahara in view of Boyce with support from
Dutta.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Boyce in view of Takahara with support from Dutta, and further in
view of Cohen.
Claims 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Takahara in view of Boyce with support from Dutta, and
further in view of Cohen.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
issues raised by the Examiner and Appellants. We have not considered other
possible issues including compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 101 that have not
been raised by the Examiner and which are, therefore, not before us.
ISSUE
Based on Appellants' arguments, the dispositive issues on appeal
include:
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Boyce teaches or suggests
that the processing of trick play data in accord with the VTR commands is to
effect a personal video recording function as recited in independent claim 1?
Appeal Br. 10-12.
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Boyce teaches or suggests
"placing the at least one command in the transport packet" and
"providing the transport packet to the video processor within the stream of
transport packets," as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 12.
4
Appeal2014-009396
Application 11/103,819
3. Did the Examiner err in finding that Takahara teaches or
suggests "said indicator indicating that the transport packet contains at
least one command for the video processor," as recited in claim 1. Appeal
Br. 14.
4. Did the Examiner err in finding that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have found it obvious to combine Boyce and Takahara, inter alia,
to arrive at claim l? Appeal Br. 15-18.
5. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Boyce
and Takahara teaches or suggests "providing video data to a video decoder
responsive to determining that the one of the transport packets excludes
the indicator," as recited in independent claim 6. Appeal Br. 21.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief, and concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Rejection of Claim 1
The Examiner relies upon Boyce to teach the at least one command
"including a trick mode command, the trick mode command being
configured to effect a personal video recorder function relative to the video
stream." Final Act. 4. Specifically, the Examiner relies upon Boyce's
description of a trick play mode, which states in part that "during trick play
5
Appeal2014-009396
Application 11/103,819
mode, the reformatter 410 may perform the additional function of inserting
VTR commands into the video/ audio transport data packet stream to instruct
the transport and priority decoder 208 on how to process trick play data
correctly." Boyce, col. 52, 11. 16-20.
In response, Appellants argue that "the VTR commands in Boyce are
used to 'instruct the transport and priority decoder 208 on how to process
trick play data correctly', not to 'effect a personal video recorder
function."' Appeal Br. 10-11.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. Appellants contend that a
meaning of "effect," as used in claim 1, is "to cause to come into being."
Reply Br. 7. However, even applying Appellants' interpretation of "effect"
the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Boyce uses VTR command signals to
cause personal video recorder functions to come into being such as by
causing the VTR to enter into a trick play mode (Boyce, col. 51, 11. 57---64)
and by causing particular decoding and/ or error concealment to be
performed when the VTR is operating in the trick play mode (Boyce, col.
52, 11. 39--44). Final. Act. 4; Ans. 3. As correctly recognized by the
Examiner, by causing particular decoding and/or error concealment to be
performed, Boyce's VTR commands effect a personal video recorder
function. Final. Act. 4; Ans. 3. The Examiner also finds, and we agree, that
in Boyce, "the VTR is capable of generating some images from the use of
the multi-speed playback track over a wide range of trick playback speeds
and directions of operations." Ans. 2 (citing Boyce, col. 46, 11. 28-30)
(internal quotes omitted). Thus, by performing different playback speeds
and directions of operations, Boyce's VTR commands effect a personal
video recorder function. Ans. 3.
6
Appeal2014-009396
Application 11/103,819
Appellants argue that Boyce does not teach or suggest "piacing the at
least one command in the transport packet" or "providing the transport
packet ... to the video processor within the stream of transport
packets," as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 12.
Appellants' argument is not persuasive because the Examiner relies
upon Takahara, rather than Boyce, to teach these limitations. Ans. 5. "Non-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references." See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)).
Appellants argue that "Takahara fails to teach or suggest at least 'said
indicator indicating that the transport packet contains at least one command
for the video processor', as recited in claim 1." Appeal Br. 14 (emphases
omitted). Specifically, Appellants contend that none of the commands in
Takahara is for the video processor because "[ s ]uch commands of freezing,
resuming or ending of the data transmission operation in Takahara are for
'the video transmission control unit 201' (see Takahara, col. 5, 11. 47--48),
not for 'the video processor."' Reply Br. 11.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. As noted above,
Takahara's commands are for the video transmission control unit 201. As
illustrated by Figures 2 and 3 of Takahara, however, video transmission
control unit 201 is part of control program 200, which is stored in memory
105 for implementation by CPU 104. Takahara, col. 4, 11. 13-27. Because
the preceding components function collectively as Takahara's video
processor, and because video transmission control unit 201 is part of control
7
Appeal2014-009396
Application 11/103,819
program 200, Takahara's freezing, resuming, and ending commands are for
the video controller as claimed.
Appellants argue for the first time in the Reply Brief that Takahara
does not teach or suggest generating a transport packet with an indicator in
the transport packet because Takahara only teaches video packets and voice
packets, and is therefore, completely silent with respect to transport packets.
Reply Br. 12. That argument is untimely and will not be considered in the
absence of any good faith showing why it could not have been timely
presented in Appellants' Appeal Brief. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2013).
Appellants contend that that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have found it obvious to combine Boyce and Takahara to arrive at claim 1
because modifying Boyce using Takahara would change the principle of
operation of Boyce and render Boyce's system being modified
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Appeal Br. 15 (citing In re Ratti,
270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959)).
Appellants' reliance on Ratti is misplaced. Ratti held that, under its
particular facts, the "suggested combination of references would require a
substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in [the
primary reference] as well as a change in the basic principles under which
the [primary reference] construction was designed to operate," and that such
combination was, therefore, nonobvious. Ratti, 270 F.2d at 813 (emphasis
added).
Ratti is distinguishable from the case at hand because Appellants have
not established that the modification based on Takahara suggested by the
Examiner would have required substantial reconstruction and redesign of the
elements of Boyce. That is, Appellants have not established that inserting
8
Appeal2014-009396
Application 11/103,819
the VTR commands inside the transport packet would have required a
substantial reconstruction and redesign of Boyce's structure. To the
contrary, as noted by the Examiner, Boyce's demultiplexer 210 could be
modified to process command data separately along with audio and video
data, thereby obviating the need for substantial reconstruction and redesign.
Ans. 7.
Ratti is further distinguishable from the case at hand because
Appellants have defined the basic principle of operation of the primary
reference too narrowly. Appellants' argument suggests that the basic
principle of operation of Boyce is to allow the VTR commands to go
through the VTR command signal input and, consequently, go to the priority
decoder 214 and the video decoder module 216. Appeal Br. 18.
Appellants provide insufficient evidence demonstrating why Boyce's
basic principle of operation should be construed so narrowly. In fact, Boyce
indicates that the basic principle of operation is to "make[] it possible for a
video tape recorder receiving the video packets to determine the utility of the
codewords in a given packet from the priority level information in the packet
headers." Boyce, Abstract; see Plas-Pak Indus., Inc. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG,
600 F. App'x 755, 758 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (agreeing with the Board that
"[r]elying on a reference's contribution to the art to understand its 'principle
of operation' is not error."). To arrive at this object, Boyce describes
inserting "headers contain[ ing] information identifying the assigned priority
level of the codewords in each packet." Boyce, Abstract. Appellants
provide no indication why Boyce would be unable to "determine the utility
of the codewords" when modified to insert the VTR commands inside the
transport packet. Thus, Appellants fail to demonstrate that the modification
9
Appeal2014-009396
Application 11/103,819
of Boyce based on Takahara would have changed the principle of operation
of Boyce or rendered Boyce unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We also
affirm the rejection of independent claims 12 and 22, which are not argued
separately.
Claims 4, 13, 18, 19, 25, 27, 28, 30, 34--40, 42, and 43, which depend
from and include all of the limitations of claims 1, 12, and 22, are not argued
separately and, therefore, the rejections of these claims are also sustained.
Rejection of Claim 6
Appellants argue that Takahara does not teach "providing video data
to a video decoder responsive to determining that the one of the transport
packets excludes the indicator," as recited in independent claim 6. Appeal
Br. 21. Specifically, Appellants argue that "[ s ]teps 802 to 808 ... of
Takahara, merely teach calculating the delay by counting the number of
packets and the time interval," rather than "providing video data to a video
decoder," as claimed. Appeal Br. 21.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Rather, we find
that the Examiner has provided a complete response to Appellants'
arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Final Act. 9-10; Ans.
10-11. As such, we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations
provided therein. Id.
For additional clarity, we note that the Examiner's rejection based on
Takahara is not limited to steps 802 to 808 as indicated by Appellants, but
includes all of Figure 7. Final Act. 9-10. Figure 7, in tum, illustrates that
steps of video receiving control unit 202 continue beyond step 808 to
include steps in subroutine A or B depending on the outcome of step 811.
10
Appeal2014-009396
Application 11/103,819
The Examiner further finds that Figure 7 relates to video receiving control
unit 202 controlling a decoding rate for supplying coded video data to video
decoder 107, and, thus, Figure 7 suggests providing video data to a decoder
responsive to determining that the one of the transport packets excludes the
indicator (i.e., when the communication end command is not present at step
816 of Figure 7 leading to the "NO" branch). Ans. 10. Accordingly, we
affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 6.
Claims 11, 32, and 41, which depend from and include all of the
limitations of claim 6, are not argued separately and, therefore, the rejections
of these claims are also sustained.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 6, 11-13, 18,
19, 22, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, and 34--43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11