Ex Parte Yurt et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 2008

10279664 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PAUL YURT AND H. LEE BROWNE
____________

Appeal 2008-0928
Application 10/279,664
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: March 27, 2008
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, ROBERT E. NAPPI
and JOHN A. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 33 to 48 and 50 to 82. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We will reverse the rejection.

Appeal 2008-0928
Application 10/279,664

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants have invented a method of and a system for providing
digital audiovisual information in the form of compressed, formatted, and
multiplexed digital data blocks via satellite to user receiving systems. The
video information in the audiovisual information is compressed using a
discrete cosine transform and motion compensation. Relative time markers
are assigned to at least some of the compressed, formatted, digital data
blocks of video information. At least some of the compressed, formatted,
digital data blocks of audio information are also assigned relative time
markers. The relative time markers allow for realignment of the video and
the audio information (Figure 2a; Specification 17 to 19).
Claims 33 and 65 are representative of the claims on appeal, and they
read as follows:
33. A method of providing multiplexed data blocks comprising
compressed digital audiovisual information via satellite to a remotely located
user reception system, comprising:
associating a program note with an item of audiovisual information;
storing program note information in an item database;
converting video information in the item of audiovisual information
into a predetermined format as first formatted digital data blocks;
converting audio information in the item of audiovisual information
into a predetermined format as second formatted digital data blocks;
assigning relative time markers to at least some of the first formatted
digital data blocks;
Appeal 2008-0928
Application 10/279,664

3
assigning relative time markers to at least some of the second
formatted digital data blocks;
wherein the relative time markers allow for realignment of the first
formatted digital data blocks and the second formatted digital data blocks;
compressing the first formatted digital data blocks using a
compression process that comprises discrete cosine transform and motion
compensation;
compressing the second formatted digital data blocks;
multiplexing the first and second compressed formatted digital data
blocks with compressed formatted digital data blocks of another item of
audiovisual information by placing data blocks interleaved onto a
transmission path; and
transmitting the multiplexed data blocks via satellite directly to the
remotely located user reception system, for reception and playback by the
remotely located user reception system.
65. A method of providing multiplexed data blocks comprising
compressed digital video information via satellite to a remotely located user
reception system, comprising:
associating a program note with video information;
storing program note information in an item database;
converting the video information into a predetermined format as first
formatted digital data blocks;
assigning relative time markers to at least some of the first formatted
digital data blocks;
Appeal 2008-0928
Application 10/279,664

4
compressing the first formatted digital data blocks using a
compression process that comprises discrete cosine transform and motion
compensation;
storing the first compressed formatted digital data blocks and relative
time markers in a file;
multiplexing the first compressed formatted digital data blocks with
second compressed formatted digital data blocks by placing data blocks
interleaved onto a transmission path; and
transmitting the multiplexed data blocks via satellite to the remotely
located user reception system.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Tu US 4,544,950 Oct. 1, 1985
Krause US 5,091,782 Feb. 25, 1992
Tindell US 5,130,792 Jul. 14, 1992
M. M. Mourad, “Some issues in the implementation of multimedia
communication systems,” IEEE Xplore, Release 2.1, pages 1, and 4 to 13,
Sept. 30-Oct. 2 1990.
The Examiner rejected claims 33 to 48 and 50 to 82 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Tindell, Mourad, Tu, and Krause.

ISSUE
Appellants contend inter alia that Mourad does not teach relative time
markers assigned to digital audio or video data blocks (App. Br. 10 to 15;
Reply Br. 5 and 6). Thus, the issue before us is whether the applied prior art
Appeal 2008-0928
Application 10/279,664

5
teaches or would it have suggested to the skilled artisan the assignment of
relative time markers to digital audio data blocks or the assignment of
relative time markers to digital video data blocks?

FINDINGS OF FACT
As indicated supra, Appellants’ method includes the steps of
assigning relative time codes to the compressed, formatted, digital data
blocks of video information, and to the compressed, formatted, digital data
blocks of audio information.
Tindell describes a system and method for transferring video
programs from a first location to a second location via a telephone network.
Prior to the transfer, the video and the audio portions of the program are
separated, digitized, and compressed (Figure 3; Abstract; col. 2, ll. 3 to 9).
In Tindell, information (e.g., program notes) that is needed to make a
program selection and to keep up with administrative matters is stored (col.
3, ll. 22 to 49). A multiplexing operation is performed during the transfer of
the video program (col. 7, ll. 9 to 16).
In the paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5, the publication to Mourad
describes a multimedia communications system which is concerned with
synchronization between video and audio signals during playback. In
sections 2.3, 2.3.2, 2.3.4, and 2.4, Mourad indicates that the synchronization
is performed in the time domain based on a start time and duration of the
multimedia information. In section 2.4, Mourad describes descriptors and
attributes (e.g., program notes) that are stored for multimedia objects.
Appeal 2008-0928
Application 10/279,664

6
Tu describes a technique for transmission of video and audio over a
digital transmission system (Figures 2 and 6; Abstract; col. 2, ll. 6 to 26). A
digitized video signal and associated video mode status bits are multiplexed
with a plurality of digitized audio signals into an N-bit frame format
(Abstract; col. 4, ll. 2 to 40).
Krause describes an apparatus and a method for compressing
successive blocks of digital data using a discrete cosine transform encoder
(Figure 3; Abstract; col. 4, ll. 23 to 30; col. 6, ll. 3 to 10; col. 7, ll. 10 to 17).
Krause uses motion compensation to increase compression efficiency (col. 3,
ll. 52 and 53; col. 7, ll. 19 to 24; col. 9, ll. 4 to 67). Krause recognizes that
the output from the transmitter can be transmitted to a receiver via either
satellite to cable or satellite to satellite (col. 1, ll. 18 to 27).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If that
burden is met, then the burden shifts to the Appellants to overcome the
prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. See Id.
The Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must possess a
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

ANALYSIS
As indicated supra in the findings of fact, Mourad is the only
reference of record that expressly describes the use of time for
Appeal 2008-0928
Application 10/279,664

7
synchronization purposes during the playback of video and audio
multimedia information. Although time is used in Mourad, it is not used as
a relative time marker assigned to formatted digital data blocks of video
information as set forth in claims 33 to 48 and 50 to 82 on appeal, and as a
relative time marker assigned to formatted digital data blocks of audio
information as set forth in claims 33 to 48, 50 to 64, and 74 to 82 on appeal.
Thus, even if we assume for the sake of argument that it would have been
obvious to the skilled artisan to combine the reference teachings in the
manner suggested by the Examiner, the combined teachings of the
references neither teach nor would have suggested to the skilled artisan the
assignment of relative time markers to formatted digital data blocks of
video, and the assignment of relative time markers to formatted digital data
blocks of audio.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
The Examiner has not established the obviousness of claims 33 to 48
and 50 to 82.

Appeal 2008-0928
Application 10/279,664

8
ORDER
The obviousness rejection of claims 33 to 48 and 50 to 82 is reversed.

REVERSED

KIS

CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, L.L.P.
P. O. BOX 7068
PASADENA, CA 91109-7068