Ex Parte Zhou

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 31, 2008

10888702 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 31, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MINHUA ZHOU
_____________

Appeal 2007-3854
Application 10/888,702
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: March 31, 2008
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO and MARC S.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2007-3854
Application 10/888,702

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-4 and 7-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to video encoding (claim 7) and
decoding (claim 1) in a system following the H.264 video compression standard
and avoiding inadvertent emulation of the start code within code units by
integrating stuff byte insertion or removal into the encoding or decoding routines
(Spec. 1-6).
Claims 1 and 7, reproduced below, are representative of the subject matter
on appeal:
1. A method of decoding a bitstream, comprising:
(a) receiving a bitstream encoded as a sequence of units, each unit
with a start code prefix and with at least one unit including at least one
stuff byte for prevention of emulation of said start code within said
unit;
(b) decoding said units with at least one bit-handling routine which
discards said at least one stuff byte.
7. A method of encoding a bitstream, comprising:
Appeal 2007-3854
Application 10/888,702

3

(a) receiving a data bitstream to be encoded as a sequence of units,
each unit including stuff byte(s) as needed for prevention of emulation
of a start code within said unit;
(b) inserting bits from said data bitstream into one of said units begin
encoded with at least one bit-handling routine which inserts stuff
byte(s) when needed.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:

Sullivan US 2003/0146855 A1 Aug. 07, 2003
(filed Jan. 22, 2003)

The following rejection is before us for review:
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Sullivan.1

ANTICIPATION UNDER § 102(e)
Claims 1-4 were argued as a group with claim 1 as representative (Br. 3).
Claims 7-10 were argued as a group with claim 7 as representative (Br. 3).

1 Claims 5 and 6 are indicated as allowable but stand objected as dependent on a
rejected claim 1.
Appeal 2007-3854
Application 10/888,702

4
We address claims 7-10 first as they relate to encoding, and claims 1-4
second as they relate to decoding.
There are two issues before us. The first issue is whether the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Sullivan. The first
issue turns on whether the Appellant’s specification is the best guide to the
meaning of the disputed terms “the bit handling routine” as the terms relate to
encoding. The second issue is whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Sullivan. The second issue turns on
whether the Appellant’s specification is the best guide to the meaning of the
disputed terms “the bit handling routine” as the terms relate to decoding.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The relevant facts include the following:
1. Sullivan discloses a start code emulation prevention method that looks for
data patterns relative to fixed-size data portions larger than single bits
(¶[0017]).
2. Sullivan discloses that when a particular pattern is found, start code
emulation prevention data, which can be a byte, is inserted to prevent start
code emulation (¶[0017]).
3. Sullivan discloses that step 102 of Figure 1 checks or searches incoming
data for one or more patterns of fixed-size data portions and step 106 of
Figure 1 inserts start code emulation prevention data relative to the data that
Appeal 2007-3854
Application 10/888,702

5
contains the pattern (i.e., where the fixed-sized portion is one byte, the start
code emulation prevention data is one byte) (Figure 1 and ¶[0027-0028]).
4. Appellant’s specification describes a type of a bit stream handling routine
identified as “put_bits_ep() – emulation prevention with put_bits()” which
includes detecting start code emulations and inserting stuffing byte(s) as
needed (Spec. 11-12).
5. Sullivan discloses that step 100 obtains or generates a quantity of data that is
intended for transmission after a start code and step 101 prefixes the data
with start codes (¶[0027]).
6. Sullivan provides an example of a start code prefix having three bytes
represented by WWX which is a fixed value, wherein the transmission data
are processed looking for the pattern WWX and when found then a start
code emulation prevention byte Z is stuffed or inserted to provide the pattern
WWZX (¶[0038]). Sullivan further discloses that the decoder reading a
pattern of WWZX will recognize Z as an emulation prevention data and
discard byte Z (¶[0041]).
7. Appellant’s specification describes a type of a bit stream handling routine
identified as “get_bits_ep() -- emulation prevention with get_bits()” which
includes detecting the stuff byte for prevention of emulation and discarding
it during the decoding (Spec. 8-9).
8. Sullivan discloses that step 120 of Figure 1 searches data to identify start
code emulation prevention data and step 122 removes the start code
emulation prevention (Figure 1 and ¶[0031]).
Appeal 2007-3854
Application 10/888,702

6
9. Sullivan discloses in step 124 that once the start code emulation
prevention data has been removed, the data can be processed in a
manner that it is typical for the type of data that has been received
(Figure 1 and ¶[0031]).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference.” Verdegaal Bros. Inc., v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over the prior art under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 begins with a determination of the scope of the claim. We determine the
scope of the claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim
language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in light of
the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The claims, of course, do not stand alone. Rather, they are part of ‘a
fully integrated written instrument,’ . . . consisting principally of a
specification that concludes with the claims. For that reason, claims
‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’ . . . .
[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction
analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the
meaning of a disputed term.’

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Appeal 2007-3854
Application 10/888,702

7
ANALYSIS
We address the arguments regarding the encoding process of claims 7-10
first and the arguments regarding the decoding process of claims 1-4 second, as
encoding occurs prior to decoding.

A. Rejection of claims 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated
by Sullivan.

Claims 7-10 were argued as a group with claim 7 as representative (Br.
3).
Appellant argues that the byte stuffing for emulation prevention of Sullivan
does not suggest a bit-handling routine (e.g., put bits()) which also performs any
byte stuffing (Br. 3). Furthermore, Appellant argues that Sullivan separates the bit-
handling (block 100 of Figure 1) and the byte stuffing (block 106 of Figure 1) (Br.
3).
The Examiner refers the Appellant to block 208 of Figure 2 which teaches a
bit handling routine as part of a bit handling process where the “filler
data”/“stuffing bytes” is used in encoding/decoding transmitted data bits (Ans. 7).
The Examiner states that Sullivan teaches a start code emulation prevention
method which looks for data patterns relative to fixed-size data portions larger than
single bits (Finding of Fact 1 and Ans. 7). The Examiner further finds that when a
particular pattern is found, start code emulation prevention data which can be a
byte is inserted to prevent start code emulation (Finding of Fact 2 and Ans. 7). The
Examiner also finds that when the pattern is found, step 106 of Figure 1 of Sullivan
Appeal 2007-3854
Application 10/888,702

8
inserts start code emulation prevention data relative to the data that contains the
pattern (i.e., where the fixed-sized portion is one byte, then the start code
emulation prevention data is one byte) (Finding of Fact 3 and Ans. 7). Thus, the
Examiner concludes that Sullivan discloses a method with at least one bit-handling
routine which inserts stuff byte(s) when needed (Ans. 7).
The dispute arises because of the meaning of the terms “the bit
handling routine.” Appellant’s specification describes a type of a bit stream
handling routine identified as “put_bits_ep() – emulation prevention with
put_bits()” which includes detecting start code emulations and inserting
stuffing byte(s) as needed (Finding of Fact 4). As stated supra, the
specification is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d at 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Thus, “the bit
handling routine,” according to Appellant’s specification, as it relates to claim
7, constitutes detecting start code emulations and inserting stuff byte(s) as
needed (Finding of Fact 4).
Sullivan discloses that step 100 obtains or generates a quantity of data
that is intended for transmission after a start code and step 101 prefixes the
data with start codes (Finding of Fact 5). Sullivan further teaches that step
102 of Figure 1 checks or searches incoming data for one or more patterns of
fixed-size data portions and step 106 of Figure 1 inserts start code emulation
prevention data relative to the data that contains the pattern (Finding of Fact
3). Sullivan provides an example of a start code prefix having three bytes
represented by WWX which is a fixed value, wherein the transmission data
Appeal 2007-3854
Application 10/888,702

9
are processed looking for the pattern WWX and when found then a start code
emulation prevention byte Z is stuffed or inserted to provide the pattern
WWZX (Finding of Fact 6). Thus, Sullivan discloses “the bit handling
routine” in steps 102 and 106 by detecting start code emulations and inserting
stuff byte(s) as needed (Findings of Fact 3 and 6). Furthermore, “the bit
handling routine” itself as disclosed by Sullivan inserts stuff byte(s) when
needed (i.e., step 106) (Findings of Fact 3 and 6).
Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the bit
handling routine of Sullivan is represented by block 100 of Figure 1 because
“the bit handling routine” as defined by Appellant’s own specification
(Finding of Fact 4) is the same as steps 102 and 106 of Sullivan of locating
the stuff byte detecting start code emulations and inserting stuff byte(s) as
needed (Findings of Fact 3 and 6). Furthermore, “the bit handling routine”
itself (i.e., step 106) as disclosed by Sullivan inserts at least one stuff byte
(i.e., byte Z) as claimed in claim 7 (Findings of Fact 3 and 6).
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claims 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Sullivan.

B. Rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Sullivan.
Claims 1-4 were argued as a group with claim 1 as representative (Br.
3).
Appellant argues that the removal of the emulation prevention (stuff) byte in
Sullivan is not a bit-handling routine, but rather just a byte scan and discard (Br.
Appeal 2007-3854
Application 10/888,702

10
3). Appellant explains that Sullivan separates the byte discard (block 122 of
Figure 1) and the bit handling routine (block 124 of Figure 1), whereas claim 1
requires the bit-handling routine to also provide the byte discard (Br. 3). The
Examiner responds that a bit-handling routine reads on processes of encoding and
decoding data bits (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds that the bit-handling routine of
decoding in Sullivan includes steps 118, 120 and 122 as shown in Figure 1 of
Sullivan, wherein step 118 finds and discards the start code, step 120 searches the
data to identify start code emulation prevention data, and step 122 removes start
code emulation prevention data (Ans. 5-6). Thus, the Examiner concludes that the
bit handing routine removes the start code emulation prevention data in step 122
(Ans. 6).
The dispute arises because of the meaning of the terms “the bit
handling routine.” Appellant’s specification describes a type of a bit stream
handling routine identified as “get_bits_ep() -- emulation prevention with
get_bits()” which includes detecting the stuff byte for prevention of emulation
and discarding it during the decoding (Finding of Fact 7). As stated supra,
the specification is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d at 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Thus, “the bit
handling routine,” according to Appellant’s specification, as it relates to claim
1, is detecting the stuff byte for prevention of emulation and discarding it
during decoding.
Sullivan discloses that step 120 of Figure 1 searches data to identify
start code emulation prevention data and step 122 removes the start code
Appeal 2007-3854
Application 10/888,702

11
emulation prevention (Finding of Fact 8) which is consistent with Appellant’s
own specification (Finding of Fact 7). Thus, Sullivan discloses “the bit
handling routine” in steps 120 and 122 by locating the stuff byte for
prevention of emulation and discarding it during decoding (Finding of Fact
8). Furthermore, in the example of Sullivan presented supra wherein the
transmission data were processed looking for the pattern WWX and
emulation prevention byte Z was stuffed or inserted to provide the pattern
WWZX, Sullivan further discloses that the decoder reading a pattern of
WWZX would recognize Z as an emulation prevention data and discard byte
Z (Finding of Fact 6). Sullivan discloses in step 124 that once the start code
emulation prevention data has been removed, the data can be processed in a
manner that is typical for the type of data that has been received (Finding of
Fact 9).
Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the bit
handling routine of Sullivan is represented by block 124 of Figure 1 because “the
bit handling routine” as defined by Appellant’s own specification (Finding of Fact
7) is the same as steps 120 and 122 of Sullivan of locating the stuff byte for
prevention of emulation and discarding it during decoding (Findings of Fact 6 and
8). Furthermore, “the bit handling routine” itself as disclosed by Sullivan (i.e., step
122) discards the at least one stuff byte (i.e., Z) as claimed in claim 1.

Appeal 2007-3854
Application 10/888,702

12
CONCLUSION OF LAW
We conclude that the Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-4 and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-4 and 7-10 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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

gvw

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P. O. BOX 655474
M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265