Ex Parte VU et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 26, 2008

09249642 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 26, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte QUAN A. VU
and HISATO SHIMA
____________

Appeal 2008-1610
Application 09/249,642
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: June 26, 2008
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MAHSHID D. SAADAT,
and KEVIN F. TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2008-1610
Application 09/249,642

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 10-32, which are all of
the claims pending in this application as claims 3 and 9 have been canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appellants’ invention relates to a method and apparatus for
transmitting an isochronous video stream of data at a particular frame rate
determined by the receiving device (Spec. 3-4). An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of independent claim 1, which is
reproduced as follows:
1. A method of transmitting information from a source
device at a predetermined rate, the method comprising:

a. calculating a ratio of first data blocks to second data
blocks to achieve the predetermined rate;

b. forming x number of the first data blocks wherein each of
the first data blocks contains n units of data;

c. forming y number of the second data blocks wherein
each of the second data blocks contains m units of data, and further
wherein m is not equal to n; and

d. combining x number of first data blocks and y number of
second data blocks into a data stream to achieve the predetermined
rate, wherein the first data blocks and the second data blocks are of a
same type and have same characteristics and further wherein the x
number of first data blocks are evenly distributed among the y number
of second data blocks thereby forming a repeating pattern of the first
data blocks and the second data blocks within the data stream.

Appeal 2008-1610
Application 09/249,642

3
The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference:
Staats US 6,373,821 B2 Apr. 16, 2002

Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-20, 23-25, and 28-31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Staats.
Claims 21, 22, 26, 27, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Staats.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we make reference to the Brief
(filed Dec. 16, 2005), the Reply Brief (filed Aug. 15, 2007), and the Answer
(mailed Jun. 29, 2007) for the respective positions of Appellants and the
Examiner.
We reverse.

ISSUE
The issue is whether the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and 103(a). The issue specifically turns on whether
Staats anticipates Appellants’ claimed invention by disclosing the step of
transmitting a data stream wherein “the x number of first data blocks are
evenly distributed among the y number of second data blocks thereby
forming a repeating pattern of the first data blocks and the second data
blocks within the data stream.

PRINCIPLE OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single prior art reference
that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim
invalidates that claim by anticipation. Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375-76, 77 (Fed. Cir. 2005), citing Minn. Mining &
Appeal 2008-1610
Application 09/249,642

4
Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1565
(Fed. Cir. 1992). Also See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir.
1994). Anticipation of a claim requires a finding that the claim at issue
reads on a prior art reference. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d
1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778
F.2d 775, 781 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Staats does not disclose that x number of first
data blocks are combined with y number of data blocks into a data stream to
achieve a predetermined transmission rate (App. Br. 6). Appellants further
assert that Table 1 of Staats, as relied on by the Examiner for disclosing a
repeating pattern, merely indicates that a frame presentation time stamp (or
SYT) value is calculated for a current frame and then used to calculate a
delta value for the current frame, on a frame by frame basis (id.). Appellants
conclude that such teachings do not amount to the claimed evenly
distributing x number of first data blocks among y number of second data
blocks to form a repeating pattern of the two data blocks within the data
stream (id.).
The Examiner responds by stating that the transmission of 266 and
267 packets as disclosed by Staats are synonymous to the claimed first and
second data blocks with n and m units of data (Ans. 10). The Examiner
further equates data synchronization when M=266.973 with the claimed
“evenly distributed” first blocks among the second blocks (id.). Relying on
Table 1 of Staats, the Examiner asserts that after calculating the first two
Appeal 2008-1610
Application 09/249,642

5
values, the cycle repeats every 37th packet, which provides the claimed
“repeating pattern” (Ans. 11).
Upon a review of Staats, we agree with Appellants (App. Br. 7) that
the data blocks of 266 packets of Staats are not shown in Table 1 to be
evenly distributed among the data blocks of 267 packets. Although Table 1
shows that three frames of 266 packets are followed by a frame of 267
packets, then a frame of 266 packets, and later by a frame of 267 packets,
the distribution of frames of 266 packets is not even among the frames of
267 packets. We also disagree with the Examiner that the claimed “x
number of first data blocks are evenly distributed among the y number of
second data blocks” reads on the synchronization requirement discussed in
Staats. While synchronization requires combination of frames with 266 and
267 packets in order to achieve an average transmission rate of 266.5 (col. 9,
ll. 21-24), there is no indication that the two types of frames are evenly
distributed.
Therefore, as argued by Appellants (Reply Br. 5), the frame by frame
calculation of Staats does not result in evenly distributed first data blocks
among the second data blocks which form a repeating pattern within the data
stream. In that regard, even if a pattern is created by the sequence of 266
packet and 267 packet frames of Staats and is repeated every 37th packet,
the Examiner has not shown how such pattern represents an evenly
distributed x number of first data blocks among the y number of second data
blocks.

Appeal 2008-1610
Application 09/249,642

6
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we find that the Examiner fails to make a
prima facie case that Staats anticipates claim 1 or other independent claims
6, 13, and 17 which include similar limitations. Therefore, in view of our
analysis above, the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-20, 23-
25, and 28-31 as anticipated by Staats cannot be sustained.
Additionally, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claims 21, 22, 26, 27, and 32 over Staats as the Examiner has not pointed to
any modification applied to Staats that would have overcome the
deficiencies discussed above.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-32 is
reversed.

REVERSED

KIS

HAVERSTOCK & OWENS, L.L.P.
162 N WOLFE ROAD
SUNNYVALE, CA 94086