Ex Parte Fröjdh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 27, 2016

13502242 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016)

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. 13/502,242 04/16/2012 Per Fröjdh 4015-8087 / P30209-US2 2090 24112 7590 05/31/2016 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC 1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300 Cary, NC 27518 EXAMINER DANG, HUNG Q ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2484 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2016 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 ____________________ Ex parte PER FROJDH, CLINTON PRIDDLE, and ZHUANGFEI WU ____________________ Appeal 2014-006820 Application 13/502,242 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 21, 22, 24–28, and 30–40.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 23 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Ans. 10–11. Appeal 2014-006820 Application 13/502,242 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present patent application concerns “providing supplemental processing information useful in connection with media content processing.” Spec. 1:4–5. Claims 21, 27, 34, and 38 are independent. Claim 21 illustrates the claimed subject matter: 21. A method of providing supplemental processing information relating to encoded media content, the method comprising: providing a pseudo-identifier of a media codec employed for encoding the media content; providing supplemental processing information defining post-decoding instructions for processing decoded media content obtainable by decoding the encoded media content; co-organizing the pseudo-identifier and the supplemental processing information in a file to: trigger abortion of decoding of the encoded media content by a legacy media terminal that does not recognize the pseudo-identifier; and enable decoding of the encoded media content using the media codec and post-decoding processing of the decoded media content using the supplemental processing information by a media terminal that recognizes the pseudo-identifier. REJECTIONS Claims 21, 22, 24–28, and 30–40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Suh et al. (US 2011/0090306 A1; April 21, 2011) (“Suh ’306”). Appeal 2014-006820 Application 13/502,242 3 ANALYSIS Claim 21 recites “co-organizing the pseudo-identifier and the supplemental processing information in a file to: trigger abortion of decoding of the encoded media content by a legacy media terminal that does not recognize the pseudo-identifier.” App. Br. 20. Independent claims 27, 34, and 38 recite similar limitations. Id. at 22, 25, 27. Appellants argue Suh ’306 does not disclose a “pseudo-identifier” as that term is defined by the Appellants’ specification, nor does Suh ’306 disclose “trigger[ing] abortion of decoding . . . by a legacy media terminal that does not recognize the pseudo identifier.” Id. at 8–10. According to Appellants, Suh ’306 discloses that media terminals must recognize, process, and interpret the “stream_type” field the Examiner equated to claimed “pseudo-identifier.” Id. We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. Claim 21 recites “trigger[ing] abortion of decoding. . . by a legacy media terminal that does not recognize the pseudo-identifier.” The Examiner found Suh ’306 anticipates this limitation because Suh ’306 discloses “that a legacy media terminal (a 2D broadcast receiver), although reading the ‘stream_type’ field, interprets the ‘stream_type’ as indicating the corresponding stream to be private data.” Ans. 14. The Examiner found “[t]his is a wrong interpretation . . . because the ‘stream_type’ is not to indicate the corresponding stream as private data, but, instead, the type of stream . . . .” Id. The Examiner reasoned that “[w]hen a legacy media terminal wrongly recognizes the ‘stream_type’ field, it is safe to say that the legacy media terminal does not recognize the ‘stream_type’ field . . . .” Id. at 14–15. But the cited portions of Suh ’306 do not disclose that media terminals incorrectly interpret the stream_type field. Rather, the cited portions Appeal 2014-006820 Application 13/502,242 4 disclose “[a] ‘stream_type’ field may indicate a coding type . . . . [and] the stream_type field . . . may have a specific field value that is interpreted as private data.” Suh ’306 ¶ 77. For example, “[i]f the stream_type information is set to 0x06, the broadcast receiver determines a corresponding stream to be private data . . . so that the corresponding program is ignored or discarded.” Id. ¶ 93. Thus, contrary to the Examiner’s findings, one purpose of the stream_type field is to “indicat[e] the corresponding stream to be private data.” Given this, correctly determining that the stream_type field indicates a stream is private does not amount to “wrongly interpreting” the field. Moreover, when the disclosed terminals read a particular stream_type field value (e.g., 0x06), the terminals ignore or discard the associated stream. Reading the stream_type field and taking a specific action if the field is a certain value amounts to “recognizing” the field under any reasonable construction of the term. We therefore agree with Appellants that the cited portions of Suh ’306 do not anticipate the disputed limitations. Accordingly, on this record, we do no sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 21, 27, 34, and 38 or their respective dependent claims. DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 21, 22, 24– 28, and 30–40. REVERSED