Ex Parte Tourapis et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 7, 201311631449 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte ALEXANDROS MICHAEL TOURAPIS and JILL MACDONALD BOYCE _____________ Appeal 2010-006744 Application 11/631,449 Technology Center 2400 ______________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. Per Curiam DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appeal 2010-006744 Application 11/631,449 2 BACKGROUND Appellants have filed a paper under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 requesting that we reconsider our decision of December 21, 2012 where we affirmed the rejections of claims 1 through 22. We reconsider our decision in light of Appellants’ Request for Rehearing, but we decline to change the decision. First Issue: Appellants contend that we improperly overlooked points raised in the Reply Brief when we stated “Appellants, on pages 11 through 13 of the Reply Brief, assert that Green does not teach that the selection of the stream is for transmission. These arguments were presented for the first time in the Reply Brief and have not been considered as they are deemed waived.” Request for Rehearing 2 (citing footnote 3 on pages 3-4 of our December 21, 2012 decision). Appellants assert that the discussion on pages 11 through 13 of the Reply Brief were made in the Appeal Brief and that they were in response to points raised by the Examiner. Request for Rehearing 3-4 (citing page 15 of the Appeal Brief and pages 11-12 of the Answer).1 These arguments have not persuaded us that we improperly overlooked points raised in the Reply Brief. Appellants’ arguments on page 15 of the Appeal Brief are directed to Green teaching a forced switch over and not the claimed selecting any one of the video streams. While the word transmission appears in these arguments, the argument is not directed to the 1 Throughout this decision we refer the Appeal Brief dated October 2, 2009, Reply Brief, dated January 14, 2010, Examiner’s Answer dated December 8, 2009, and Request for Rehearing dated January 8, 2013. Appeal 2010-006744 Application 11/631,449 3 Examiner’s finding that Green teaches the claimed transmission. Appellants’ argument on pages 11 through 13 of the Reply Brief asserts that Green teaches receipt, decoding and presentation of streams and does not teach that streams are received and selected for transmission as claimed. Thus, the thrust of the arguments are different and we do not consider the arguments on pages 11 through 13 of the Reply Brief to be directed to an issue raised in the Appeal Brief. Further, Appellants’ assertion that this new argument was in response to the Examiner’s statement on pages 11 and 12 of the Answer is not persuasive. Appellants do not provide a detailed showing of why these arguments were necessitated by “arguments newly made by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer;” rather Appellants merely assert that this is in response to statements made by the Examiner on pages 11 and 12 of the Answer. Request for Rehearing 3. This assertion, that the response is necessitated by new points raised by the Examiner in the Answer, does not appear to be supported by the record. The Examiner’s statements on pages 11 and 12 of the Answer are similar, if not identical to statements on pages 2 and 3 of the Final Rejection dated August 20, 2009. Finally, even if the argument that Green does not teach the selected stream is for transmission, as submitted in the Reply Brief, were properly presented, the argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1 because as we discussed in the prior decision: [T]he claims merely recite selecting one video stream for transmission and do not identify what form the transmission takes place or to where the transmission is destined; however, Appellants’ arguments appear to be reading additional limitations into the claim. For example, Appellants’ argument, on page 12 of the Reply Brief, that Green’s receipt, decoding and presentation (all of which involve transmission of a signal to another circuit or component) does not meet the claim, Appeal 2010-006744 Application 11/631,449 4 assumedly because Appellants intend the transmission to be un- decoded and not presentable. PTAB decision dated December 21, 2012, Footnote 3. Thus, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that our December 21, 2012 decision improperly overlooked points raised in the Reply Brief. Second Issue: Appellants contend that, by adopting the Examiner’s finding that Green teaches the transmission of any stream begins with a RAP or Intra coded picture, we misapprehended points raised in the Briefs. Specifically, that we misapprehended Appellants’ argument that Green teaches when switching from unicast to multicast “the transmission of the multicast stream, can occur at any point including a NON-RAP point.”2 Request for Reconsideration 4. We do not find this argument persuasive. In addition to the reasoning provided by the Examiner, we noted that “Green teaches that the splice point (the point where the transmission is switched from unicast to multicast position) is performed at a RAP point (intra-coded picture). Green, Col. 8, ll. 11-14, ll. 60-61.” PTAB decision pg.5. While there are embodiments of Green where the transition can be at any point, as argued by Appellants, such is not the case in all embodiments. The teachings of Green cited in our prior decision make it clear that Green also includes an embodiment where the triggering for transition from unicast to multicast is the RAP point. Thus, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that our 2 We note that this statement seems to be admitting that Green teaches transmission of the Multicast signal which is in contradiction to the Footnote continued on next page. Appeal 2010-006744 Application 11/631,449 5 December 21, 2012 decision misapprehended points raised in the Briefs relating to Green’s teaching that switching from unicast to multicast can occur at any point in the stream. CONCLUSION For the aforementioned reasons, Appellants’ contentions have not persuaded us of error in our December 21, 2012 decision. Accordingly, while we have granted Appellants’ Request for Rehearing to the extent that we have reconsidered our decision, that request is denied with respect to making any changes therein. REHEARING DENIED tj arguments on pages 11-13 of the Reply Brief, the basis for Appellants’ Rehearing argument discussed supra. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation