Ex Parte Wollborn

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 16, 2013

10399633 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2013)

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.
10/399,633 09/17/2003 Michael Wollborn 10191/3086 4047
26646 7590 01/17/2013
KENYON & KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004
EXAMINER
PATEL, DHAIRYA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/17/2013 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 MICHAEL WOLLBORN
____________

Appeal 2010-007983
Application 10/399,633
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, HUNG H. BUI, and
LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 13, 15-22, and 24-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2010-007983
Application 10/399,633

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to multimedia descriptions and in
particular to a method for structuring a bitstream of binary multimedia
descriptions and parsing such a bitstream. Spec. 1, ll. 7-10.
Claim 13 is illustrative of the invention (emphasis added to disputed
limitations):
13. A method for structuring a bitstream for a binary
multimedia description in which binary identifiers representing
opening tags and closing tags of at least one of descriptors and
description schemes are used, the method comprising:
positioning binary identifiers on at least one regular
positioning grid within the bitstream, wherein the at least one
regular positioning grid limits a number of possible positions
for positioning the binary identifiers;
assigning a unique number to each opening binary
identifier corresponding to a same descriptor or description
scheme;
assigning the unique number to each corresponding
closing binary identifier; and
parsing the bitstream by only checking the binary
identifiers on positions defined by the at least one regular
positioning grid.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 13, 15-22, and 24-28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamane (US 6,393,196 B1, May 21,
2002) and Basso (US 6,751,623 B1, June 15, 2004).
Appeal 2010-007983
Application 10/399,633

3
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that the portion of Yamane cited by the Examiner
does not disclose or suggest assigning a unique number to each opening
binary identifier corresponding to a same descriptor or description scheme,
and assigning the unique number to each corresponding closing binary
identifier, as recited in claim 13. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 3-4.
1
We agree with
Appellant.
The Examiner finds that VTS #0 in Figure 1 of Yamane corresponds
to the claimed “opening binary identifier” and that VTS #K in Figure 1 of
Yamane corresponds to the claimed “closing binary identifier.” Ans. 3. In
rejecting claim 13, however, the Examiner has not identified anything in
Yamane that suggests assigning a unique number to an opening binary
identifier and its corresponding closing binary identifier. See Ans. 3-4, 8-12.
Specifically, in the Grounds of Rejection section of the Answer, the
Examiner fails to address the limitations relating to assigning a unique
number. Ans. 3-4. In the Response to Argument section, the Examiner
states: “The opening identifier is number VTS # 0 (assign unique numbers
for opening identifier) and the closing identifier is VTS # K (assign unique
number for closing identifier).” Ans. 9. This statement, however, does not
address the requirement in Appellant’s claim 13 that the same unique
number is assigned to an opening binary identifier and its corresponding
closing binary identifier.

1
In this opinion we refer to the Supplemental/Replacement Appeal Brief
dated Dec. 2, 2009, and the Reply Brief dated May 6, 2010.
Appeal 2010-007983
Application 10/399,633

4
For at least this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 13 and of claims 15-22 and 24-28
dependent thereon.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 13, 15-22, and 24-28 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 15-22, and 24-28 is reversed.

REVERSED

ELD