Ex Parte WU

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

12171077 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/171,077 07/10/2008
37123 7590 10/03/2016
FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP
120 SOUTH LASALLE STREET
SUITE 1600
CHICAGO, IL 60603-3406
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jing WU
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.
7114-104060-US 2273
EXAMINER
ALCON, FERNANDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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
Exparte JING WU
Appeal2015-000282
Application 12/171,077
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-18, 20, 21, and 23-29,
which constitute all the claims pending in this application. 1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The Examiner cites claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-13, 15-21, and 23-29 as being
rejected (Final Act. Summary). However, claims 11 and 19 have been
cancelled. We consider this harmless error as the Examiner does not address
these claims in the Final Action or Answer, and neither does Appellant in
their briefs.
Appeal2015-000282
Application 12/171,077
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is directed to a method and apparatus for audio
language selection (Spec. i-f 1 ).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method for providing an alternate audio language for
a received broadcast media stream, the method comprising:
receiving a broadcast media stream, by a receiving device,
the media stream comprising at least one channel including video
data and audio data, the audio data comprising a plurality of
audio languages, a program channel map identifying portions of
the audio data available for decoding, and a plurality of packet
identifiers;
detecting a channel setting of the receiving device, the
channel setting comprising an audio language setting including
one of the plurality of audio languages selected by user and
associated with the at least one channel of the received broadcast
media stream;
detecting the audio language setting associated with the at
least one channel of the received broadcast media stream by
decoding the audio data of the at least one channel of the received
broadcast stream by parsing a program identifier of the program
channel map of the at least one channel of the received broadcast
media stream to determine the audio language selected by the
user;
decoding the audio data of the broadcast media stream in
the audio language selected by the user based one of the packet
identifiers associated with the audio data corresponding to the
audio language selected by the user; and
outputting the video data and the audio data of the received
broadcast media stream in the audio language selected by the
user.
2
Appeal2015-000282
Application 12/171,077
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-18, 20, 21,
23, and 27-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Ellis
(US 7,051,360 Bl; May 23, 2006), Fang (US 2005/0149973 Al; July 7,
2005), and Ko (US 2007/0211168 Al; Sept. 13, 2007).
The Examiner rejected claims 24--26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Ellis, Fang, Ko, and Lee (US 7,571,455 B2; Aug. 4,
2009).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action from which this appeal
is taken and in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal
Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We
highlight the following additional points.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in interpreting claim 1 's
requirement "to determine the audio language selected by the user" as
encompassing Ko's "establish[ing] the availability of the audio language"
(App. Br. 13-14). Specifically, Appellant contends, the Specification
"parses the broadcast data stream to identify a setting indicating the user's
preferred audio language, not to identify the availability of audio languages
in the stream" (App. Br. 14). Appellant's Reply Brief continues this
argument, asserting "the present application clearly describes that the
receiving device parses the broadcast data stream to detect a setting for
3
Appeal2015-000282
Application 12/171,077
identifying the user's preferred audio language, not merely to detect the
availability (i.e., presence) of audio languages in the received data stream"
(Reply Br. 2) (emphasis removed). We disagree.
Initially, we note Appellant is arguing limitations not found in the
claims (e.g., "identify a setting indicating the user's preferred audio
language"). The claims recite "parsing a program identifier of the program
channel map .... to determine the audio language selected by the user." We
will not read limitations in the Specification into the claims, as Appellant
would have us do.
We also agree with the Examiner the broadest reasonable
interpretation of "determine the audio language selected by the user," in
view of the Specification, encompasses "determining the availability of the
user['s] preferred language," as the language must be available in order to be
determined (Ans. 14; Spec. Fig. 4, step 420).
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, and
independent claims 8 and 16, argued for the same reasons (App. Br. 18-19),
and dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15-18, 20, 21, and 23-26, for
which no separate arguments are provided (App. Br. 21 ).
With respect to claims 27-29, Appellant asserts the Examiner
erroneously relied on inherency for disclosing the limitations of claims 27-
29. Appellant contends just because "MPEG-2 streams may include a
header or payload" (emphasis added), does not make it necessarily so (App.
Br. 20). We disagree.
Initially, we note this is an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over a combination of references, and not an anticipation rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The Examiner relies on the inherent disclosure of
4
Appeal2015-000282
Application 12/171,077
headers and footers by MPEG-2 in combination with the teachings of Ellis,
Ko, and Fang for teaching or suggesting the requirements of claims 27-29,
not on MPEG-2 alone. See Final Act. 10, Ans. 14. Appellant has not
provided any evidence or argument to persuade us the Examiner's findings
and reasons for how the combination of Ellis, Fang, and Ko renders claims
27-29 obvious are in error.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 27-29.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-
18, 20, 21, and 23-29 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5