Ex Parte Yurt et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 2008

10279384 (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 2008-0666
Application 10/279,384
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 38 and 45. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We will reverse the rejection.

Appeal 2008-0666
Application 10/279,384

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants have invented a method of providing digital audiovisual
information in the form of compressed, formatted, 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. The compressed, formatted, digital data blocks of video
information are assigned relative time markers. 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).
Claim 33 is the only independent claim on appeal, and it reads as
follows:
33. A method of providing data blocks comprising compressed digital
audiovisual information via satellite to user receiving systems, comprising:
receiving audiovisual information from a remote location over a first
satellite communication channel, the audiovisual information comprising
information in the form of compressed, formatted, digital data blocks,
wherein video information in the audiovisual information has been
compressed using a discrete cosine transform and motion compensation, and
wherein the compressed, formatted, digital data blocks comprise
compressed, formatted, digital data blocks of video information having been
assigned relative time markers and compressed, formatted, digital data
blocks of audio information having been assigned relative time markers, the
relative time markers allowing for realignment of the video information and
the audio information;
Appeal 2008-0666
Application 10/279,384

3
storing program note information associated with the audiovisual
information in an item database; and
transmitting the compressed, formatted, digital data blocks received
from the remote location over the first satellite communication channel to
the user receiving systems over a second satellite communication channel
for reception by the user receiving systems.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Schwartz US 4,755,889 Jul. 5, 1988
Krause US 5,091,782 Feb. 25, 1992
Rovira US 5,239,540 Aug. 24, 1993
The Examiner rejected claims 33 to 38 and 45 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Rovira, Krause, and Schwartz.

ISSUE
Appellants contend inter alia that Schwartz discloses the storing of
time code markers with video information, but fails to disclose digital data
blocks of video information that have been assigned relative time markers,
and digital data blocks of audio information that have been assigned relative
time markers (App. Br. 6 to 8; Reply Br. 5 to 8). Thus, the issue before us is
whether the applied prior art teaches or would it have suggested to the
skilled artisan the method steps of claim 33 including the assignment of
relative time markers to compressed, formatted, digital data blocks of video
information, and the assignment of relative time markers to compressed,
formatted, digital data blocks of audio information?
Appeal 2008-0666
Application 10/279,384

4
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.
Rovira describes a method and apparatus for transmitting program
data signals along with digital audio/video signals to program listeners via a
digital satellite transmitter and digital satellite receivers (Figure 1; Abstract;
col. 4, l. 32 to col. 5, l. 28). The digital satellite receivers distribute the
audio/video signals to user receiving systems via cable television,
microwave, telephone systems, terrestrial broadcasts, coaxial or optical
systems (col. 5, ll. 20 to 28). As an example, the program data signals
permit a listener at a user site to know the title and other information about a
song that is playing at the user listener’s site.
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).
Schwartz describes a digital audio and video recording and playback
system. During recording, an analog video signal is converted into a
multiplicity of digital data streams, and the first of the digital data streams is
a sequential time code that is representative of the beginning of each video
Appeal 2008-0666
Application 10/279,384

5
frame (Figures 1, 8 and 9; col. 4, ll. 15 to 59). Schwartz is silent as to a time
code representation for the audio portion of the analog signal. During
playback of the recorded video digital signal, the time code marker assigned
to the video is used to aid synchronization between the video frames and the
audio (col. 19, l. 6 to col. 20, l. 49).

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 Appellant 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, Schwartz is the only
reference of record that assigns a time code marker to video data.
Appellants have correctly argued that the video information in Schwartz is
not in digital data block form as set forth in the claims on appeal. None of
the applied references applies a time code marker to audio data. 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
Appeal 2008-0666
Application 10/279,384

6
markers to compressed, formatted, digital data blocks of video information,
and the assignment of relative time markers to compressed, formatted,
digital data blocks of audio information.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
The Examiner has not established the obviousness of claims 33 to 38
and 45.

ORDER
The obviousness rejection of claims 33 to 38 and 45 is reversed.

REVERSED

KIS

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