Ex Parte Hannuksela et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2014

10844676 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MISKA HANNUKSELA
and YE-KUI WANG
____________________

Appeal 2012-004185
Application 10/844,676
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG,
and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-004185
Application 10/844,676

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3–6, 21, 23–27, 29–32, 36, 40, 41, 43, 44, and 47–50. Claims 2,
22, and 28 have been canceled. Claims 7–20, 33–35, 37–39, 42, 45, 46, 51,
and 52 have been withdrawn from consideration (App. Br. 2). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention is directed to data encoding,
decoding, storage and transmission of a scalable data stream comprising at
least two scalability layers (Spec. ¶ 1).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method, comprising:
producing at least two layers of a scalable data stream,
wherein each of said at least two layers is characterized by its
own coding property; and
signaling each of said at least two layers with said coding
property such that it is readable by a decoder to determine the
coding property without analyzing the scalable data stream,
wherein said coding properties include at least one of a
profile and level combination and a set of Hypothetical
Reference Decoder/Video Buffer Verifier (HRD/VBV)
parameters, said coding property allowing selection of any of
said at least two layers for decoding or transmission according
to the profile and level combination and the HRD/VBV
parameters.

Appeal 2012-004185
Application 10/844,676

3
C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Winger US 7,415,069 B2 Aug. 19, 2008
Van Der Meer WO 2005/055605 A1 June 16, 2005
Claims 1, 6, 21, 26, 27, 32, 36, 40, 41, 43, 44, and 47–50 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Applicant’s
Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and Winger.
Claims 3–5, 23–25, and 29–31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA, Winger, and Van Deer Meer.1
Claims 1–6, 21–32, and 36 stand provisionally rejected on the ground
of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
over claims 1–5, 7–18, 24–33, and 39–49 of copending Application No.
11/971,176. However, Appellants are not appealing this double patenting
rejection (App. Br. 5). As Appellants do not argue that the rejection is in
error, we summarily affirm the rejection of claims 1–6, 21–32, and 36 on the
ground of obviousness-type double patenting over the specified claims of
copending Application No. 11/971,176.
II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in
finding AAPA in view of Winger teaches or would have suggested
“producing at least two layers of a scalable data stream, wherein each of said
at least two layers is characterized by its own coding property; . . . wherein

1 The rejection of claims 1, 3–6, 21, 23–26, 40, 43, 44, 47, and 48 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 has been withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 5).
Appeal 2012-004185
Application 10/844,676

4
. . . said coding property allowing selection of any of said at least two layers
for decoding or transmission . . .” (claim 1, emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
AAPA
1. AAPA discloses that it is well-known to have audio and video
standards specifying “profiles” and “levels” wherein through the
combination of profile and level, a decoder can declare whether it can
decode a stream without trying decoding (Spec. ¶¶ 6–7).
2. Scalable coding technologies include conventional layered
scalable coding techniques and fine granularity scalable coding, where a
scalable bit stream contains at least two scalability layers and each layer is a
decoding alternative (id. ¶¶ 9–10), wherein Hypothetical Reference Decoder
(HRD) or Video Buffer Verifier (VBV) parameters are used to impose
constraints on the bit rate variations of compliant bit streams (id. ¶ 11).
Winger
3. Winger discloses sending information to a decoder at or before
decoding of a picture or sequence wherein the signal comprises information
concerning which parameter set the current video coding layer slice
references (col. 4, ll. 51–56).
IV. ANALYSIS
Appellants contend “AAPA fails to teach or suggest the various
features recited in the pending claims” wherein the teaching “allows
selection of a layer for decoding or transmission according to the layer-
Appeal 2012-004185
Application 10/844,676

5
specific information” (App. Br. 11). Appellants then contend Winger does
not disclose or suggest “using any layer-specific coding property” (App. Br.
12, emphasis omitted).
However, the Examiner finds AAPA discloses the contested claimed
limitations (Ans. 9–10), and incorporates Winger “to resolve the deficiency”
(Ans. 15). In particular, the Examiner finds Winger discloses “each layer
may have its own parameter” (Ans. 15). Thus, the Examiner finds the
claimed invention “is met under the combination of the AAPA and Winger”
(id.).
We note although Appellants contend AAPA does not allow
“selection of a layer for decoding or transmission according to the layer-
specific information” (App. Br. 11) and Winger does not disclose or suggest
“using any layer-specific coding property” (App. Br. 12, emphasis omitted),
such arguments are not commensurate in scope with the recited language of
the claims. In particular, the claims do not require any such “layer-specific”
coding property, but rather each layer has its own coding property.
We give the claim, as specifically recited, its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We further note that although claim 1 requires
that each of the layers “is characterized by its own coding property,” nothing
in claim 1 precludes the “coding property” from being the same for each of
the layers. That is, claim 1 merely requires that each layer comprises a
“coding property” which does not preclude the layers from having the same
coding property for each of the layers, as long as there is a coding property
for each of the layers.
Appeal 2012-004185
Application 10/844,676

6
Furthermore, we note that claim 1 merely recites “wherein . . . said
coding property allowing selection of any of said at least two layers for
decoding or transmission.” That is, claim 1 does not positively recite any
selecting, decoding or transmitting of the layers, but rather “allowing” of the
selection of the layers for the intended purpose of “for decoding or
transmission” of the layers are provided in a “wherein” clause.2
Nevertheless, AAPA discloses that it was well-known to have audio
and video standards specifying “profiles” and “levels” (FF 1), wherein
conventional layered scalable coding techniques are applied where a scalable
bit stream contains at least two scalability layers with each layer being a
decoding alternative, and HRD/VBV parameters are used to impose
constraints on the bit rate variations (FF 2). That is, AAPA teaches or would
have suggested producing at least two layers of scalable data stream
characterized by coding properties including at least one of a profile and
level combination and a set of HRD/VBV parameters (FF 1–2).
Furthermore, Winger discloses a signal comprising information
concerning which parameter set the current video coding layer slice

2 See MPEP §2111.04 regarding “wherein” clauses:
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or
makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or
by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular
structure. However, examples of claim language, although not
exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of
the language in a claim are:
(A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses;
(B) “wherein” clauses; and
(C) “whereby” clauses.
(MPEP § 2111.04, Eighth Edition, Rev. 9, Aug. 2012).
Appeal 2012-004185
Application 10/844,676

7
references (FF 3). We agree with the Examiner’s finding Winger discloses
“each layer may have its own parameter” (Ans. 15).
Accordingly, we find no error with the Examiner’s finding the
claimed invention “is met under the combination of the AAPA and Winger”
(id.; FF 1–3). That is, the preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner
finding that AAPA discloses claimed limitations (Ans. 9–10) and Winger
resolves the deficiency of AAPA (Ans. 15).
Furthermore, although Appellants contend “AAPA fails to teach or
suggest the various features recited in the pending claims” (App. Br. 11) and
Winger does not disclose or suggest “using any layer-specific coding
property” (App. Br. 12, emphasis omitted) , since the Examiner rejects the
claims as obvious over the combined teachings, the test for obviousness is
not what the references show individually but what the combined teachings
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck &
Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Supreme Court has determined the conclusion of obviousness can
be based on the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of
demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and
the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in
the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The skilled
artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like
pieces of a puzzle” since “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 420–21.
On this record, we are not persuaded that combining Winger’s
teaching of each layer having its own parameter, with AAPA’s teachings of
producing two layers of scalable data stream and signaling the layers with
Appeal 2012-004185
Application 10/844,676

8
coding property, would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one
of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Therefore,
we find the Examiner’s proffered combination of familiar prior art elements
according to their established functions would have conveyed a reasonable
expectation of success to a person of ordinary skill having common sense at
the time of the invention.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1, independent claims 21 and 27 falling therewith
(App. Br. 14), and claims 6, 26, 32, 36, 40, 41, 43, 44, and 47–50 depending
respectively therefrom, but not separately argued (id.) over AAPA and
Winger.
Regarding the second-stated rejection, Appellants do not provide
substantive arguments for claims 3–5, 23–25, and 29–31, separate from
those of claims 1, 21, and 27 (App. Br. 15). Accordingly, claims 3–5, 23–
25, and 29–31 fall with claims 1, 21, and 27 over AAPA and Winger, in
further view of Van Der Meer.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–6, 21, 23–27, 29–32, 36, 40,
41, 43, 44, and 47–50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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

msc