Ex Parte Van Vugt

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2013

10516149 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEALS BOARD
____________________

Ex parte HENRICUS ANTONIUS VAN VUGT
____________________

Appeal 2010-001131
Application 10/516,149
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2010-001131
Application 10/516,149

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a method and
arrangement for detecting a watermark in an information signal, such as an
MPEG compressed video signal (Spec. 1:2-6).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method of detecting a watermark in a digital
information signal being transferred at a first data rate from one
device to another device over a communication bus, the
information signal being formatted in accordance with an
MPEG standard into a sequence of slices representing
respective portions of said signal, the method comprising the
steps of detecting the watermark by a watermark detector
arranged to receive the information signal in accordance with
said standard at a second data rate which is lower than said first
data rate, said watermark detector being coupled to said
communication bus through an interface circuit being arranged
to carry out the steps of:

- storing slices of said information signal into a buffer at
said first data rate,

- applying the data stored in said buffer to the watermark
detector at said second data rate,

- determining a degree of fullness of said buffer, and

- refraining from storing a slice of the information signal
into said buffer if said degree of fullness exceeds a
predetermined threshold, said threshold being indicative that
there is insufficient room remaining in the buffer to store the
slice in its entirety.

Appeal 2010-001131
Application 10/516,149

3
REFERENCES and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Sugaya (US 7,085,474 B2, filed May 4, 2001) and
Connor (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2005/0147110 A1, filed Dec. 24, 2003).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Sugaya stores slices of an information signal in a
buffer and Connor teaches determining the degree of fullness of the buffer
(Ans. 3). The Examiner then finds it would have been obvious to a skilled
artisan to use the buffer monitor with the watermark system of Sugaya to
allow efficient use of the buffer and prevent buffer overflow (id.).
Appellant contends the Examiner has incorrectly interpreted the term
“packets” in the prior art as corresponding to the term “slices” as claimed
(Br. 9). That is, in an MPEG2 hierarchy, a Group of Pictures (GOP) includes
a plurality of pictures, each picture includes plurality of slices, each slice
includes a plurality of macroblocks, etc. (id.). Thus, Appellant contends, “a
‘slice’ is distinct from a ‘packet’” (id.) (emphasis omitted). Appellant also
contends neither Sugaya nor Connor teaches or suggests “determining a
fullness of said buffer, and refraining from storing a slice of the information
signal into said buffer” as claimed, because Appellant asserts Conner is not
related to MPEG signaling (Br. 10). .
The Examiner states, because Sugaya teaches the storage of GOPs,
Sugaya inherently teaches the storage of slices in view of the definition of
the MPEG2 hierarchy. Further, Sugaya discloses the buffer memory accepts
data from a bus line, the amount of data being for more than one GOP, and
stores the data in the buffer memory (see col. 3, ll. 9-31). Thus, the buffer
Appeal 2010-001131
Application 10/516,149

4
memory receives and stores the GOPs, and therefore the slices of data, into
the buffer memory as claimed in Appellant’s claim 1. The Examiner also
finds Conner teaches a buffer threshold that indicates when a buffer is about
to be full, thus disclosing “determining a degree of fullness” as claimed
(Ans. 5). The Examiner asserts when a threshold in Connor is reached, all
further packets are dropped, therefore Connor suggests refraining from
storing packets (that include slices) in the buffer (Ans. 10-11).
Appellant has not rebutted the Examiner’s findings, which set forth
how the references teach the various claim limitations and how they are
combinable to obtain Appellant’s claimed invention. Accordingly, we
conclude the Examiner has provided a rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness. For the above reasons, we are not
persuaded of Examiner error. Because we find the weight of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 and claims 4-8, argued
separately but with the same arguments as set forth with respect to claim 1
(Br. 12; Ans.6).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8 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

Vsh/peb