Ex Parte Toma et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2016

11721479 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111721,479 06/12/2007
52123 7590 04/29/2016
GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON, VA 20191
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tadamasa Toma
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.
P29937 1145
EXAMINER
BECK,LERON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2016 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):
gbpatent@gbpatent.com
greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
U-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TADAMASA TOMA, TOMOYUKI OKADA, SAM LIU,
PHILIP M. WALKER, and PAUL BOERGER
Appeal2014-008409
Application 11/721,479
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of Claims 18, 19, 21-26, 29, 30, 35, and 36,
which comprise all pending claims. App. Br. 1; Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE. 2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Hewlett-Packard Development Company L.P.
and Panasonic Corporation, as the Real Parties in Interest. App. Br. 3.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 6, 2014, "App. Br."), the Reply
Brief (filed July 31, 2014, Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed June
Appeal2014-008409
Application 11/721,479
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a picture coding apparatus. See Abstract.
Claims 18, 23, 29, and 35 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 18, which is
reproduced below with some formatting added:
18. A picture coding apparatus which generates a coded
picture signal by coding each picture in each random access
unit which includes one or more pictures, said picture coding
apparatus comprising:
a coder operable to code, when the random access unit of
the coded picture signal is an open type random access unit
which is able to be coded by referring to another random access
unit, a picture to be coded to generate an independent picture
which is positioned, in the random access unit, in a display
order before a starting picture that is positioned in a decoding
order as a first picture, and which is able to be decoded
independently without referring to any other picture;
an information generator operable to generate, when the
random access unit is the open type random access unit, first
supplementary information which indicates a picture type of
each of pictures in the random access unit of the coded picture
signal, and second supplementary information which indicates a
structure of each of the pictures;
a generator operable to generate, when the random access
unit is the open type random access unit, a stuffing bit so that a
total bit number of the first supplementary information, the
second supplementary information, and the stuffing bit is
integral multiplication of eight bits; and
6, 2014, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed September 5, 2013, "Final Act."),
and the Specification (filed June 12, 2007, "Spec.") for their respective
details.
2
Appeal2014-008409
Application 11/721,479
a writer operable to write, when the random access unit is
the open type random access unit, the first supplementary
information and the second supplementary information
generated by said information generator and the stuffing bit
generated by the generator into the random access unit of the
coded picture signal,
wherein the first supplementary information is
supplementary information indicating a picture type of each of
the pictures, in the decoding order of the pictures in one of the
random access units, and a picture type of at least one of the
pictures is the independent picture, and the second
supplementary information is supplementary information for
identifying the number of display fields when each of the
pictures is displayed, in the decoding order of the pictures in
one of the random access units, and the number of display
fields varies among pictures in at least one random access unit
for which the second supplementary information is written.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Isozaki
Kim
US 6,282,242 Bl
US 2002/0090029 Al
US 2002/0196850 Al
US 2005/0010632 Al
US 7,664,177 B2
Aug.28,2001
July 11, 2002
Dec. 26, 2002
Jan. 13,2005
Feb. 16,2010
Liu
Lei
Mukerjee
Claims 18, 19, 21-26, 29, 30, 35, and 36 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Mukerjee, Kim, Isozaki, Liu, and Lei. Final
Act. 2-8.
3
Appeal2014-008409
Application 11/721,479
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 18, 19, 21-26, 29, 30, 35,
and 36 in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
agree with Appellants' conclusions.
CLAIMS 18, 19, 21-26, 29, 30, 35, AND 36: OBVIOUSNESS OVER
MUKERJEE, KIM, lSOZAKI, LIU, AND LEI
Open type random access unit.
Appellants contend that the cited art, alone or in combination, fails to
teach or suggest the claimed "open type random access unit." App. Br. 15.
The Examiner finds "that it is well known that a random access unit is
nothing more than computer storage that allows for the access of information
at random." Ans. 11. The Examiner finds Mukerjee discloses that computer
storage can be accessed using a random number generator. The Examiner
finds Mukerjee, thus discloses "a random access unit." Id.; Ans. 11.
Claim 18 recites "when the random access unit of the coded picture
signal is an open type random access unit." The claimed "random access
unit" (RAU) refers to data, i.e., a portion of a picture signal. Spec., 5, 11. 9-
13. A portion of picture signal data is not the same as, nor is it taught by, a
unit of computer storage.
Figure 1 depicts a structure of an MPEG-2 (Moving Picture Experts
Group) data stream comprising a plurality of Group of Pictures (GOP).
Spec., 2, 11. 8-10. Appellants disclose that a data stream according to the
VC-1 standard3 has the same structure as the MPEG-2 standard where a
3 Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE), Proposed
SMPTE Standard 5 for Television: VC-1 Compressed Video Bitstream
4
Appeal2014-008409
Application 11/721,479
random access point is referred to as an "entry point." Spec., 5, 11. 6-9.
Appellants disclose that according to the VC-1 standard, data from a first
entry point to the subsequent entry point is a random access unit (RAU) and
is equivalent to one GOP according to the MPEG-2 standard. Id., 11. 9-11.
The Examiner's finding that Mukerjee teaches "random access computer
storage" is completely unrelated to the claimed "random access unit of the
coded picture signal."
The Examiner has made no attempt to ground the claim construction
in the Specification. The words of a claim are generally given their ordinary
and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art
in question at the time of the invention when read in the context of the
specification and prosecution history. See Phillips v. A WH Corp., 415 F .3d
1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane). The "PTO's 'broadest' interpretation
must be reasonable, and must be in conformity with the invention as
described in the specification." In re Vaidyanathan, 381 F. Appx. 985, (Fed.
Cir. 2010). The examiner erred by resorting to extrinsic evidence that was
inconsistent with the more reliable intrinsic evidence. Bell Atl. Network
Servs. v. Covad Commc 'ns Grp., 262 F.3d 1258, 1269 (Fed. Cir.2001)
("[E]xtrinsic evidence may be used only to assist in the proper understanding
of the disputed limitation; it may not be used to vary, contradict, expand, or
limit the claim language from how it is defined, even by implication, in the
specification or file history.").
Format and Decoding Process, Final Committee Draft 1 Revision 6,
2005.7 .13). Spec., p.3, 11. 3---6.
5
Appeal2014-008409
Application 11/721,479
Appellants argue independent Claims 18, 29, and 35 as a group. App.
Br. 21. Appellants argue Claims 19, 21-26, 30, and 36 are allowable in
view of their dependence from one of independent Claims 18, 29, and 35.
Id. 22. We decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 18, 19, 21-26, 29, 30,
35, and 36.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 18, 19, 21-26, 29, 30, 35, and 36 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
6