Ex Parte Unger

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2016

11323402 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111323,402 12/29/2005
37123 7590 06/01/2016
FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP
120 SOUTH LASALLE STREET
SUITE 1600
CHICAGO, IL 60603-3406
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert Allan Unger
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.
7114-86665-US 6213
EXAMINER
VO,TUNGT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT ALLAN UNGER
Appeal2014-006755
Application 11/323,402
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-20, which are all the claims
pending in the present patent application. (See App. Br. 1.)1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 We refer to Appellant's Specification ("Spec.") filed Dec. 29, 2005
(claiming benefit of US 10/712,696, filed Nov. 12, 2003); Appeal Brief
("App. Br,") filed January 3, 2014; and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed May
27, 2014. We also refer to the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed March
26, 2014, and Non-Final Office Action (Non-Final Rejection) ("Non-Final
Act.") mailed July 15, 2013.
Appeal2014-006755
Application 11/323,402
Appellarzt 's Irzverztiorz
The invention at issue on appeal concerns encoding apparatuses,
wireless multi-media systems, and methods for dynamic encoding. The
system includes a central controller in communication with a remote
receiving device. The central controller transmits encoded signals to the
remote receiving device and receives from the remote receiving device
signal quality information for the encoded signals (received by the remote
receiving device from the central controller). The central controller
determines the quality of a communication link over which the encoded
signals are communicated, based on the signal quality information received
from the remote receiving device, and then determines available bandwidth
as a function of the determined signal quality. (Spec. 1:11-13; 2:16-3:30;
11:22-30; 13:4--14:5 Abstract.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A method for use in providing dynamic encoding,
compnsmg:
detecting a first available bandwidth;
determining a first encoding bit rate according to the first
available bandwidth;
encoding a first portion of a signal at the first encoding bit
rate;
detecting a change in the available bandwidth such that
there is a second available bandwidth, wherein the detecting the
change in the available bandwidth comprises:
2
Appeal2014-006755
Application 11/323,402
receiving, from a remote recezvzng device
configured to receive the signal, signal quality in.formation of the
signal received by the remote receiving device; and
determining, as a function of the signal quality
in.formation received from the remote receiving device, a signal
quality of a communication link over which the signal
is communicated, and determining the second available
bandwidth as a function of the determined signal quality;
determining whether the change in available bandwidth
exceeds a changed bandwidth threshold;
determining a second encoding bit rate according to the
second available bandwidth when the change in available
bandwidth exceeds the changed bandwidth threshold; and
encoding a second portion of the signal based on the
second encoding bit rate.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wang (US 5,903,673; issued May 11, 1999) and
Tzou (US 6;389;072 Bl; issued May 14; 2002).2
2. The Examiner rejects claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Haskell (US 5,159,447; issued Oct. 27, 1992) and
Brusewitz (US 6,038,257; issued Mar. 14, 2000).
3. The Examiner rejects claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kim (US 7,054,371 B2; issued May 30, 2006 (filed
June 28, 2001)) and Van Der Schaar (US 7,020,193 B2; issued Mar. 28,
2006 (filed Sept. 24, 2001)).
2 The Examiner rejects claims 1-9 and 19 over Wang in view of Tzou (Non-
Final Act. 2-7) and claims 10-18 and 20 over Tzou in view of Wang (Non-
Final Act. 7-11). We consolidate these rejections for clarity and consistency
of the record.
3
Appeal2014-006755
Application I 1/323,402
4. The Examiner rejects claims I 7 and I8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Kim, Wang, and Van Der Schaar.
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellant's
contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the dispositive
issue before us follows:
Does the Examiner err in concluding the various combinations of
prior art references (Wang and Tzou, Haskell and Brusewitz, and Kim and
Van Der Schaar) would have collectively taught or suggested "receiving,
from a remote receiving device configured to receive the signal, signal
quality information of the signal received by the remote receiving device"
within the meaning of Appellant's claim I and the commensurate limitations
of claims I I and I 7?
ANALYSIS
The§ 103 Rejection of Claims 1-20 Over Wang and Tzou
Appellant contends that Wang and Tzou do not teach the disputed
features of independent claim I (App. Br. I I-I6; Reply Br. 2-5) or
independent claims I I and I 7 (App. Br. I6-25; Reply Br. 2-5). Specifically,
Appellant contends "Wang and Tzou do not describe 'receiving ... signal
quality information of the signal received by the remote receiving device"
(App. Br. I2), in that Wang does not describe providing signal quality
information of the "source video signal" (Wang Fig. I, element I 540) (App.
Br. I I-I3) and Tzou does not describe the "user preferences" (Tzou Fig. I,
element 205) as embodying an indication of signal quality (App. Br. I2-I4).
4
Appeal2014-006755
Application 11/323,402
Appellant makes these same contentions with respect to independent claims
11 and 17. (App. Br. 19-20, 24--25.)
Appellant persuades us of error in the obviousness rejection of claim
1. Appellant's independent claims 1, 11, and 1 7 each require a remote
receiving device (that receives a signal (encoded signal)- i.e., is
configured to receive the signal) and sends back signal quality information
or statistics for the signal (i.e., receiving signal quality information of the
signal received by the remote receiving device). As explained by Appellant
(supra), Wang and Tzou do not describe such a remote receiving device or
receiving (at a different device) signal quality information corresponding to
the signal received by such a remote receiving device.
The portions of Wang cited by the Examiner fail to describe signal
quality information (data) received from a remote device that actually
receives an encoded signal. The portions of Wang cited by the Examiner
merely describe a source video signal (from a video source, which does not
appear to receive an encoded signal) and a Q value (quantization parameter)
which is determined by video encoder, not received from a remote device
(Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 29-30; Wang Fig. 1, elements 114, 1540). We
cannot agree with the Examiner's interpretation of Wang.
The portions of Tzou cited by the Examiner similarly fail to describe
signal quality information received from a remote device that actually
receives an encoded signal. The portions of Tzou cited by the Examiner
merely describe user preferences (which at best describe parameters set by a
user to optimize video presentation and do not necessarily correspond to the
encoded signal (and, thus its quality) received from a user device) (Non-
5
Appeal2014-006755
Application 11/323,402
Final Act. 4; Ans. 30-31; Tzou Figs. 1, 2, element 205). We cannot agree
with the Examiner's interpretation of Tzou.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Wang and Tzou teach the disputed limitations
of Appellant's claim 1. Independent claims 11 and 17 include limitations of
commensurate scope and were rejected using the same reasoning. Claims 2-
10, 12-16, and 18-20 depend on claims 1, 11, and 17, respectively.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1-
20 over Wang and Tzou.
The§ 103 Rejection of Claims 1-19 Over Haskell and Brusewitz
Appellant contends that Haskell and Brusewitz do not teach the
disputed features of independent claim 1 (App. Br. 25-30; Reply Br. 5---6)
(or independent claims 11 and 17 (App. Br. 30-40)). Specifically, Appellant
contends Haskell and Brusewitz do not teach receiving signal quality
information corresponding to the signal received by the remote receiving
device. (App. Br. 29-30, 33-34, 39--40.)
Appellant persuades us of error in the obviousness rejection of claim
1. The portions of Haskell cited by the Examiner (see Non-Final Act. 11-
12; Ans. 45--46) fail to describe signal quality information (data) received
from a remote device. The cited portions of Haskell describe an encoded
bit-stream (CODETR) (see col. 3, 11. 18-34; Fig. 1) and a re-computed
estimate (re-estimate) (Ri+ 1. .. ) of a bit-rate (see col. 10, 11. 11-18; Figs. 1,
8, 9). This data is not received from a remote device. (See Fig. 1.) As
further explained by Appellant, the portions cited by the Examiner describe
data utilized in calculating buffer fullness, not using signal quality data to
6
Appeal2014-006755
Application 11/323,402
determine bandwidth. (App. Br. 30.) We do not agree with the Examiner's
interpretation of Haskell.
The portions of Brusewitz cited by the Examiner also fail to describe
signal quality information received from a remote device that actually
receives an encoded signal. As explained by Appellant, the portions of
Brusewitz cited by the Examiner describe a signal for changing video
presentation parameters and do not necessarily correspond to the encoded
signal (and, thus its quality) received by the receiving device) (App. Br. 34;
see Non-Final Act. 13; Ans. 46; Brusewitz col. 4, 11. 42-51; Fig. 1, element
34). We do not agree with the Examiner's interpretation of Brusewitz.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Haskell and Brusewitz teach the disputed
limitations of Appellant's claim 1. Independent claims 11 and 17 include
limitations of commensurate scope and were rejected using the same
reasoning. Claims 2-10, 12-16, 18, and 19 depend on claims 1, 11, and 17,
respectively. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejection
of claims 1-19 over Haskell and Brusewitz.
The§ 103 Rejection of Claims 1-16 Over Kim and Van Der Schaar
Appellant contends that Kim and Van Der Schaar do not teach the
disputed features of independent claims 1 and 11 (App. Br. 41--44; Reply Br.
6). Specifically, Appellant contends Kim and Van Der Schaar do not teach
receiving signal quality information corresponding to the signal received by
the remote receiving device. (App. Br. 41--42.)
Appellant persuades us of error in the obviousness rejection of claim
1. The portions of Van Der Schaar cited by the Examiner (see Non-Final
7
Appeal2014-006755
Application 11/323,402
Act. 21-22; Ans. 55-57) fail to describe signal quality information (data)
received from a remote device that actually receives an encoded signal. The
cited portions of Van Der Schaar describe an optional user input (see col. 6,
11. 23-24; Fig. 5, element 36) and calculation of a bit-rate (a bit rate
allocation) (see col. 4, 1. 64---col. 5, 1. 2; col. 6, 11. 21-31; Fig. 3, element EE).
This data is not received from a remote device that receives the encoded
signal. (See Fig. 5.) Accordingly, we do not agree with the Examiner's
interpretation of Van Der Schaar.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Kim and Van Der Schaar teach the disputed
limitations of Appellant's claim 1. Independent claims 11 includes
limitations of commensurate scope and was rejected using the same
reasoning. Claims 2-10, 12-16, and 19 depend on claims 1 and 11,
respectively. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejection
of claims 1-16 over Kim and Van Der Schaar.
The§ 103 Rejection of Claims 17 and 18 Over Kim, Wang, and
Van Der Schaar
With respect to the obviousness rejections of independent claim 17
and dependent claim 18, rejected as obvious over Kim and Van Der Schaar
as well as Wang, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejection for the
same reasons set forth (supra). The Examiner cites Kim, Wang, and Van
Der Schaar as teaching receiving signal quality information. (See Non-Final
Act. 25-27; Ans. 60-62). As explained above, none of the references (Kim,
Wang, or Van Der Schaar) describe signal quality information received from
8
Appeal2014-006755
Application 11/323,402
a remote device that receives an encoded signal. Accordingly, we reverse
the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 17 and 18.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20.
REVERSED
9