11436252 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2014)

Ex Parte Walter

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 29, 2014

11436252 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/436,252 05/16/2006 Edward Walter 2006-A0310_7785-0475 7769 92384 7590 01/29/2014 AT&T Legal Department - G&G Attention: Patent Docketing Room 2A-207 One AT&T Way Bedminster, NJ 07921 EXAMINER TSENG, CHARLES ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2613 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/29/2014 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 EDWARD WALTER ________________ Appeal 2011-008012 Application 11/436,252 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before STEPHEN C. SIU, DAVID M. KOHUT, and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 6-12, and 15-29. Claims 4, 5, 13, and 14 are canceled. App. Br. 2-3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1-3, 7-12, 15, 17-21, and 23-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Barrett (US 2005/0071782 A1; published Mar. 31, 2005), Ohkura (US 5,737,029; issued Apr. 7, 1998), Hunleth (US 2004/0268393 A1; published Dec. 30, 2004), and Chan (US 2003/0159143 A1; published Aug. 21, 2003). Ans. 4-15. Appeal 2011-008012 Application 11/436,252 2 Claims 6, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Barrett, Ohkura, Hunleth, Chan, Candelore (US 2004/0228175 A1; published Nov. 18, 2004), Fairhurst (US 2005/0166253 A1; published July 28, 2005), and Staples (US 5,752,082; issued May 12, 1998). Ans. 15-18. We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates “to processing and displaying multimedia data received via a network on a television.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A system comprising: a set-top box (STB) processor; a network interface coupled to the STB processor; a television comprising a television display coupled to the STB processor; a decoder and a parser coupled to the STB processor and the network interface; a non-volatile memory coupled to the STB processor; and a real time operating system to execute in the STB processor, the real time operating system having logic and configuration parameters, the logic configured to limit the delay between receiving a user request and providing a requested action; wherein the STB processor comprises logic to track a channel selection methodology of the system; wherein results from the tracking of the channel selection methodology are stored in the non-volatile memory, wherein the results from the tracking are used to display a plurality of channels at system startup, wherein the parser identifies Appeal 2011-008012 Application 11/436,252 3 relevant video from a received video data stream, and wherein the decoder decodes the relevant video to provide the plurality of channels. ANALYSIS THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-3, 7-12, 15, 17-21, AND 23-29 OVER BARRETT, OHKURA, HUNLETH, AND CHAN The Examiner finds Barrett, Ohkura, Hunleth, and Chan collectively teach all limitations of claim 1. Ans. 4-8. The Examiner finds Barrett inherently or implicitly disclosing a parser in disclosing a presentation device 608 or set-top box with a decoder 820 and audio/video output 830 (Fig. 8) with parsing functionality to separate video and audio data from the incoming signals 710, 712, 714, 716, 718 and 720 to generate video output 720 and audio output 722 for a user (Fig. 7). Ans. 4 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner further finds Barrett’s parser identifies relevant video from a received data stream. Ans. 5; see also Ans. 19-20. Appellant presents the following principal arguments: (i) Barrett describes receiving a request for a thumbnail version of a video feed from a receiver (see paragraph 50 of Barrett). Thus in Barrett the thumbnail video feeds are expected by the receiver. Since video feeds are expected, the receiver in Barrett does not require parsing video feeds, which is why Barrett does not describe a parsing step. In contrast, the expected video feeds of Barrett are not inherent in claim 1. Barrett fails to disclose or suggest a parser that identifies relevant video from a received video data stream and a decoder that decodes the relevant video to provide the plurality of channels as in claim 1. App. Br. 7-8. Appeal 2011-008012 Application 11/436,252 4 (ii) The Examiner “is incorrect because of [Barrett’s] use of multiple video feeds that each represent a channel and because Barrett describes separately sending video and audio data to the receiver.” Reply Br. 3 (citing Barrett, ¶ 57). (iii) There would be no motivation to modify Barrett to utilize a parser to parser the requested video feeds since such a modification would defeat the objective of Barrett to reduce the cost of the receiver and increase its speed and performance as described in paragraph 38. Barrett therefore teaches away from a use of the above- described features of claim 1. App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 4-6. We are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s Specification does not provide a specific definition for the term “parser” but does generally provide that “the parser 306 parses the multimedia data to identify the relevant video and/or audio data to be processed. Then, the parser 306 provides the video data to the video decoder 308.” Spec. ¶ 30. Consistent with the Specification, a broad but reasonable construction of the term “parser” includes the plain meaning in a computer context: “An application or device that breaks data into smaller chunks so that an application can act on the information.”1 Barrett (¶¶ 100, 103; Fig. 7) describes device 608 receiving one or more multicast signals 710, and communicating video signals 720 and audio signals 722 to television 736. Barrett (¶ 116; Fig. 8) describes device 608 including decoder 820 and audio/video output 830. Device 608 breaks data (multicast signals 710) into smaller chunks (video signals 720 and audio 1 MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 392 (5th ed. 2002). Appeal 2011-008012 Application 11/436,252 5 signals 722) so that an application can act on the information. Thus, device 608 inherently includes a parser. Thus, Barrett describes a parser that identifies relevant video (video signals 720) from a received video data stream (multicast signals 710). Regarding Appellant’s arguments (i) and (ii), we find these arguments unpersuasive because Barrett parses a multicast signal 710 into a video signal 720 and an audio signal 722. We also note that Barrett (¶¶ 56-57) describes the use of thumbnail-video feeds to generate a television guide user interface (as opposed to using a single feed with embedded feeds (see Barrett ¶¶ 5-8)). However, this does not preclude a finding that Barrett describes the recited parser as discussed above. Regarding Appellant’s argument (iii), we find this argument unpersuasive because there is no need to modify Barrett to utilize a parser because Barrett includes the recited parser for reasons explained above. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2, 3, 7-12, 15, 17-21, and 23-29, which are not argued separately with particularity. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 6, 16, AND 22 OVER BARRETT, OHKURA, HUNLETH, CHAN, CANDELORE, FAIRHURST, AND STAPLES Appellants do not argue claims 6, 16, and 22 with particularity. See App. Br. 9. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 16, and 22. Appeal 2011-008012 Application 11/436,252 6 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 6-12, and 15-29 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). AFFIRMED msc