Ex Parte Gregotski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2017

12631380 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2017)

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.
12/631,380 12/04/2009 Mark E. Gregotski BCS05459 1633
43471 7590 04/03/2017
ARRTS2 F.ntp.mrisp.s T ! C
EXAMINER
Legal Dept - Docketing
101 Tournament Drive
ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL
HORSHAM, PA 19044 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2017 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):
arris. docketing @ arris .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK E. GREGOTSKI, THOMAS L. DU BREUIL, and
FABRICE M. QUINARD
Appeal 2016-002794
Application 12/631,380
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—10 and 12—25, which constitute all
the claims pending in this application. Claim 11 has been canceled. Non-
Final Act. 1; App. Br. 2.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) filed Dec. 4, 2009; Appeal
Brief (“App. Br.”) filed July 13, 2015; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed
Jan. 1, 2016. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Nov.
17, 2015, and Non-Final Office Action (Non-Final Rejection) (“Non-Final
Act.”) mailed Nov. 19, 2014.
Appeal 2016-002794
Application 12/631,380
Appellants ’ Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns the communication of
encoded video transport streams including information specifying portions
of the transport stream are to remain unmodified when received by a
statistical re-multiplexer or other rate shaping device. Rate-shaping devices,
video transmitters, computer-readable media, and methods of multiplexing
encoded video streams are described. In one embodiment, a statistical
multiplexer receives multiple encoded video streams for multiplexing into a
transport stream; extracts descriptors indicating predefined metadata
embedded in the encoded video streams — the predefined metadata
identifying macro blocks defining a subset of at least one frame in the
encoded video streams with an encoding that is to be preserved during
statistical re-multiplexing (the “portion of an image”); identifies the portion
of an image associated with the predefined metadata (and the descriptors);
and preserves the encoding of the identified macro blocks to preserve the
portion of an image during the statistical re-multiplexing. Spec, 1, 1:5—
19; 3:24^4:4; 4:19-28; Abstract.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrate the invention:
1. A method of multiplexing encoded video streams, the
method comprising:
receiving, at a statistical multiplexer, a plurality of
encoded video streams to be multiplexed into a transport stream',
extracting descriptor information indicating where
predefined metadata is embedded in at least one of the plurality
of encoded video streams, wherein the predefined metadata
2
Appeal 2016-002794
Application 12/631,380
identifies one or more macro blocks defining a subset of at least
one frame in the plurality of encoded video streams with an
encoding that is to be preserved during statistical remultiplexing
when decoding and re-encoding the received encoded video
streams',
identifying the one or more macroblocks in the plurality of
encoded video streams with the encoding that is to be preserved
during statistical remultiplexing', and
preserving the encoding of the one or more identified
macroblocks that define a subset of at least one frame when
multiplexing the plurality of encoded video streams into the
transport stream to preserve a portion of an image during the
statistical remultiplexing.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1—9 and 19—25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Forecast et al. (US 7,096,481 Bl, issued
Aug. 22, 2006) (“Forecast”).
2. The Examiner rejects claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Hanamura et al. (US 2001/0033619 Al, published Oct.
25, 2001) (“Hanamura”).
3. The Examiner rejects claims 12—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hanamura and Forecast.
ISSUES
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants’
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issues
before us follow:
1. Does the Examiner err in finding that Forecast discloses:
receiving, at a statistical multiplexer, a plurality of
encoded video streams to be multiplexed into a transport stream;
3
Appeal 2016-002794
Application 12/631,380
extracting descriptor information indicating where
predefined metadata is embedded in at least one of the plurality
of encoded video streams, wherein the predefined metadata
identifies one or more macroblocks defining a subset of at least
one frame in the plurality of encoded video streams with an
encoding that is to be preserved during statistical remultiplexing
when decoding and re-encoding the received encoded video
streams',
identifying the one or more macroblocks in the plurality of
encoded video streams with the encoding that is to be preserved
during statistical remultiplexing', and
preserving the encoding of the one or more identified
macroblocks that define a subset of at least one frame when
multiplexing the plurality of encoded video streams into the
transport stream to preserve a portion of an image during the
statistical remultiplexing
within the meaning of Appellants’ claim 1 and the commensurate limitations
of independent claims 19 and 21?
2. Does the Examiner err in finding that Hanamura discloses the
disputed features recited in Appellants’ independent claim 10?
3. Does the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Hanamura and Forecast collectively teach or suggest the disputed features
recited in Appellants’ dependent claims 12—18?
ANALYSIS
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Rejection of Claims 1—9 and 19—25
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as being anticipated by
Forecast. See Non-Final Act. 4—7; Ans. 3—13. Appellants contend that
Forecast do not disclose the disputed features of claim 1. App. Br. 6—10;
Reply Br. 2—6. Specifically, Appellants contend:
4
Appeal 2016-002794
Application 12/631,380
In contrast to the claims, Forecast and Hanamura do not
identify one or more macroblocks in a subset of a frame. Rather,
... Forecast... [is] directed to the bit stream structure itself (i.e.,
I, B or P pictures and GOPs), and such bit stream structures
provide no manner for identifying specific image content
(macroblocks in a subset of a frame). Thus, because Forecast
and Hanamura describe bit stream structures that are handled as
complete pictures, nowhere does either reference contemplate
any ability to manipulate specific content in a frame that is
already encoded within the bitstream. Forecast and Hanamura
are merely splicing or replacing entire pictures/frames of content.
Because Forecast is directed to a high level bit stream
structure itself (i.e., I, B or P pictures and GOPs), but with no
ability to manipulate the structure based on just a portion of what
an individual picture represents (i.e., a specific portion of an
image), Applicant asserts that Forecast nowhere contemplates
preserving a portion of a picture or a portion of an image during
the remultiplexing of a plurality of encoded streams.
Reply Br. 4—5; see App. Br. 6—10; Reply Br. 2—6.
The Examiner maintains that Appellants proffer an overly narrow
interpretation of claim 1 (Ans. 3—7), that Appellants’ claim interpretation is
unsupported by the Specification (Ans. 3, 7—9), and the Examiner essentially
gives no weight to the recitations of “one or more macroblocks defining a
subset of at least one frame,” “the one or more macroblocks,” and “wherein
the predefined metadata identifies one or more macroblocks defining a
subset of at least one frame” in the claim (see Ans. 3—13). See Non-Final
Act. 4—7; Ans. 3—13.
We agree with Appellants that Forecast does not disclose the
capability of identifying data on a sub-frame/sub-picture level. In particular,
Forecast does not disclose identifying and preserving sub-portions (subsets)
of a frame — “one or more macroblocks defining a subset of at least one
5
Appeal 2016-002794
Application 12/631,380
frame” (claim 1) — in an encoded video stream. See Reply Br. 4—5. This
language is supported by Appellants’ Specification. See App. Br. 6—7;
Reply Br. 2—3; Spec. Tflf 20, 22, 35—36. Appellants, by specifying a
particular portion of video stream data (macroblocks in a subset of a frame
(image/picture)) to be preserved by the claimed method, recite a feature that
is not anywhere disclosed in Forecast. See Reply Br. 4—5.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Forecast discloses the disputed limitations of
Appellants’ claim 1. Independent claims 19 and 21 include limitations of
similar scope. Dependent claims 2—9, 20, and 22—25 depend on claims 1,
19, and 21, respectively. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claims 1—9 and 19—25.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Rejection of Claim 10
The Examiner rejects independent claim 10 as being anticipated by
Hanamura. See Non-Final Act. 12—14; Ans. 3—9, 13—16. Appellants
contend that Hanamura do not disclose the disputed features of claim 1.
App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 2—6. As with claim 1 and Forecast, discussed
supra, Appellants contend “Hanamura do[es] not identity one or more
macroblocks in a subset of a frame” (Reply Br. 4; see App. Br. 6—10; Reply
Br. 2—6. As with claim 1 {supra), the Examiner maintains that Appellants
proffer an overly narrow interpretation of claim 10 (Ans. 3—7), that
Appellants’ claim interpretation is unsupported by the Specification (Ans. 3,
7—9), and the Examiner essentially ignores {see Ans. 13—16) the recitation in
claim 10 of “predefined metadata” specifying “at least one macroblock
defining the subset of the frame” and preserving the identified macro blocks
(defining a subset of the frame) — “a macroblock detector that receives a
6
Appeal 2016-002794
Application 12/631,380
signal from the metadata extractor indicating the at least one macroblock
defining the subset of the frame that is not to be altered during statistical
remultiplexing” in the claim (claim 10). See Non-Final Act. 12—14; Ans. 3—
9, 13-16.
As with claim 1 {supra), we agree with Appellants that Hanamura
does not disclose identifying and preserving macroblocks defining sub­
portions (subsets) of a frame — “at least one macroblock defining the subset
of the frame” (claim 10) — in an encoded video stream. See Reply Br. 4—5.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Hanamura discloses the disputed limitations of
Appellants’ claim 10, and we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection
of claim 10.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 12—18
The Examiner rejects dependent claims 12—18 as obvious over
Hanamura and Forecast. See Non-Final Act. 15—17. Appellants contend
these claims are not obvious over Hanamura and Forecast for the same
reasons that claim 10 is not anticipated by Hanamura and claim 1 is not
anticipated by Forecast (that Forecast does not remedy the deficiencies of
Hanamura). App. Br. 12. For the same reasons as claim 1 and 10, discussed
supra, we are also constrained by the record before us to find that the
Examiner erred in concluding that Hanamura and Forecast teach the features
of Appellants’ claims 12—18, which depend on claim 10. Accordingly, we
reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 12—18.
7
Appeal 2016-002794
Application 12/631,380
CONCLUSION
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—
10 and 19-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
12-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—10 and 12—25.
REVERSED
8