QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 28, 2020

15660264 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2020)

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.
15/660,264 07/26/2017 Fang Shi QLXX.P0249USD1/1000344317 1074
15757 7590 10/28/2020
Qualcomm /Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
2200 Ross Avenue
Suite 3600
Dallas, TX 75201-7932
EXAMINER
LEE, Y YOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2419
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2020 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
doipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte FANG SHI, SEYFULLAH HALIT OGUZ,
SUMEET SINGH SETHI, and
VIJAYALAKSHMI R. RAVEENDRAN1
________________

Appeal 2019-003435
Application 15/660,264
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 2–21, which constitute all of the pending claims. Appeal
Br. 6. These claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Apostolopoulos (US 2002/0116715 A1; published Aug. 22,
2002. Final Action mailed Aug. 9, 2018 (“Final Act.”), 2–3. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies QUALCOMM Incorporated as the real party in interest. Appeal
Brief filed December 21, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), 2.
Appeal 2019-003435
Application 15/660,264
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant describes the present invention as follows:
A method and apparatus of processing multimedia data
comprising a first section received in error are disclosed. The
method comprises obtaining error distribution information
corresponding to the first section. The method further comprises
applying one of a plurality of error recovery schemes to the first
section of the multimedia data based on the error distribution
information.
Abstract.
Independent claim 2, reproduced below, illustrates the subject matter
of the appealed claims:
2. A method of processing multimedia data comprising a first
section received in error, the method comprising:
obtaining error distribution information corresponding to
the first section;
selecting one of a plurality of error recovery schemes
based on the error distribution information for the first section,
wherein the selecting is based at least on whether a channel
switch is detected; and
processing the first section based on the selected error
recovery scheme.

DETERMINATIONS AND CONTENTIONS
Appellant argues that Apostolopoulos does not disclose all of the
limitations of independent claim 2. More specifically, Appellant argues that
Apostolopoulos does not teach or suggest the requirement of claim 2 that
selecting one of a plurality of error recovery schemes is based on whether a
channel switch (event) is detected. Appeal Br. 7; see also Spec. ¶ 50
(describing a channel switch event). Appellant argues, “Apostolopoulos
merely discloses[,] ‘a path selector 118 for explicitly sending each packet
Appeal 2019-003435
Application 15/660,264
3
stream over a different path through the network 130.’” Id. at 9.
On this point, the Final rejection merely cites to Figure 10 of
Apostolopoulos for teaching that the recovery-scheme selection is based on
whether a channel switch is detected. Final Act. 2. In the Response to
Arguments section of the Final Action, the Examiner further reasons,
[A]s stated in the last [Office Action], selector 118 merely
illustrates the concept of a channel switch. Since the step of
selecting of a recovery scheme 950 based on the error
distribution information 940 (e.g. Fig. 9) occurs at the decoder
128 (e.g. Fig. 1), one of ordinary skill in the art would have had
no difficulty in recognizing that such selecting 128 is based on
the channel switch 118.
Final Act. 3; see also Examiner’s Answer mailed February 4, 2019 at 3–4
(“Since the error recovery schemes are utilized during video decoding 128,
one of ordinary skill in the art would have had no difficulty in recognizing
that such scheme is based on the particular channel path selected previously
by the path selector 118.”)

STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Board conducts a limited de novo review of the appealed
rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in
light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye,
94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner does not explain why selecting an error-recovery
scheme inherently would have been based on whether a channel switch is
detected, and we do not see why such a detection would have been a
necessary precondition. It is possible that the channel switch is detected
Appeal 2019-003435
Application 15/660,264
4
initially merely so that the device knows which of multiple packet streams to
decode. See Apostolopoulos, FIG. 1. Furthermore, the Examiner does not
explain why one of ordinary skill allegedly would have recognized that the
decoding-scheme selection is based on whether a channel switch has been
detected. See generally Final Act.; Ans.
Accordingly, the Examiner does not establish that Apostolopoulos
anticipates independent claim 2. We, therefore, reverse the anticipation
rejection of independent claim 2. We, likewise, reverse the anticipation
rejection of claims 3–21, which either depend from claim 2 or otherwise
recite similar claim language.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

REVERSED

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
2–21 102(b) Apostolopoulos 2–21