Ex Parte Jacobs et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 17, 2012

10536337 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte LAMBERT H. A. JACOBS, STEFAN R. J. C. DETROCH, and ROELOF E. A. REUSENS ________________ Appeal 2010-006532 Application 10/536,337 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before JASON V. MORGAN, ERIC B. CHEN, and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006532 Application 10/536,337 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1 – 19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1). We affirm. Invention The invention relates to the supply of audiovisual content to multiple receivers using a video format having independent reference frames, such as I-pictures or I-frames (i.e., Intra-frames) in the MPEG2 (Motion Pictures Expert Group-2) format. See Spec. 1, ll. 3 – 5. A video stream is transferred to the receivers and, in response to a request for an independent frame, an independent frame is inserted into the video stream. See Spec. 3, ll. 7 – 12. Exemplary Claim (Emphases Added) 1. A video display system comprising: an input means for receiving an audio/video input; an encoding means for encoding, re-encoding, or transcoding the received audio/video input into a video stream including: independent video frames, and dependent video frames; a means for concurrently transferring the video stream to two or more receivers; a means for sensing a condition indicative of at least one of a transmission error, a reception error and a potential display defect on one of the receivers; and a means for generating a request for an independent frame, the request being communicated by the transferring means to the encoding means which responds to the request by inserting an independent frame into the video stream. Appeal 2010-006532 Application 10/536,337 3 Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, and 4 – 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Satoda (US 2002/0147980 A1; Oct. 10, 2002). Ans. 3 – 9. The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Satoda and Choi (EP 1120966 A2; Aug. 1, 2001). Ans. 10. ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Satoda discloses “a means for concurrently transferring the video stream to two or more receivers,” as recited in claim 1, because Satoda uses separate frame selection and frame transmission units for each terminal? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Satoda discloses “encoding means which responds to [a request for an independent frame] by inserting an independent frame into the video stream,” as recited in claim 1, because Satoda creates different video streams for receivers? ANALYSIS Claim 1 is directed to a video display system that includes “means for concurrently transferring [a] video stream to two or more receivers” and an “encoding means which responds to [a request for an independent frame] by inserting an independent frame into the video stream.” The Examiner finds that Satoda, which is directed to a contents distribution system, discloses all of the disputed recitations. See Ans. 3 – 4 (citing Satoda fig. 1 and ¶¶ [0045], [0137] – [0139], and [0156]). In particular, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Satoda for the distribution of video content to a plurality of Appeal 2010-006532 Application 10/536,337 4 terminals. See Ans. 3 (citing Satoda ¶ [0156]); see also Ans. 11. The Examiner also relies on Satoda’s disclosure that when an error occurs on a transmission path, a user makes a request for a video refresh, which results in frame selection unit 31 transmitting an I-frame coded by intraframe coding unit 22, thus rectifying the disturbance of the image. See Satoda ¶¶ [0137] – [0139]; see also Ans. 4. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding that Satoda discloses “a means for concurrently transferring the video stream to two or more receivers,” as recited in claim 1. Appellants submit that this recitation, which recites function but not structure, invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. See App. Br. 4. For this recitation, Appellants direct us to wireless or wired network 14, which “may utilize any standard or non- standard network having sufficient bandwidth . . . such as, for example, IEEE [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers] 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g and others.” Spec. 6, ll. 15 – 18; see also Spec. Fig. 1 and App. Br. 4. The broad scope of this recitation is further illustrated by dependent claim 5, which recites that the transferring means is a wireless network that conforms to at least one of another set of standards, including Ethernet, Internet, Radio Frequency (RF), Digital Enhanced Cordless Telephone (DECT), and Bluetooth standards. See App. Br. 11 – 12. Given these broad disclosures, we find that “a means for concurrently transferring the video stream to two or more receivers” encompasses any communication network in which a video stream can be transferred to two or more receivers. Appellants argue that Satoda is “fundamentally different” than the claimed invention because Satoda requires at the “distribution server a separate frame selection unit and frame transmission unit for each terminal.” Appeal 2010-006532 Application 10/536,337 5 App. Br. 7; see also Satoda ¶ [0109]. However, Satoda’s frame selection units 31 and frame transmission units 32 generally transfer the same video content (i.e., a video stream) multicast from the interframe coding unit 23 of content input unit 20 to each of the terminals that have requested to view the selected content. See, e.g., Satoda ¶¶ [0123] and [0138] (subsequent frames selected from interframe coding unit). Claim 1 does not preclude the use of multiple concurrent transmissions through the “means for concurrently transferring the video stream” to transfer the video stream to two or more receivers. Furthermore, Satoda discloses that transmission path 50 is a communication network, see Satoda ¶ [0102], and that multiple terminals can receive selected video content, see Satoda ¶ [0156]. Since Satoda discloses multiple concurrent transmissions of a video stream through a communication network to multiple terminals, we agree with the Examiner that Satoda discloses “a means for concurrently transferring the video stream to two or more receivers,” as recited in claim 1. Appellants also contend the Examiner erred in finding that Satoda discloses “encoding means which responds to [a request for an independent frame] by inserting an independent frame into the video stream,” as recited in claim 1. Specifically, Appellants argue that “Satoda creates different video streams for [the] receivers (and uses a separate frame transmission unit 32 for doing so).” App. Br. 8. In Satoda, upon receiving a request for a video refresh, “the frame selection unit 31 waits for an intraframe-coded ‘I’ which is coded by the intraframe coding unit 22 and transmits the arrived intraframe-coded ‘I’ similarly to the operation at the time of starting viewing and listening to a Appeal 2010-006532 Application 10/536,337 6 program.” Satoda ¶ [0138]; see also Satoda ¶ [0045]. Thus, in response to a request for an independent frame (a video refresh request), Satoda’s encoding means (frame selection unit 31 and intraframe coding unit 22) responds to the request by inserting an independent frame (intraframe-coded “I”) into the video stream transmitted to the terminal that made the request. Appellants argue that Satoda fails to “show how such a request results in insertion of the independent frame into the video stream that is then transmitted to all receivers.” App. Br. 8. However, Appellants do not identify any claim recitations that preclude the video stream, concurrently transferred to two or more receivers, from being changed for one terminal in response to a request for an independent frame. We also do not find recited limitations in claim 1 or disclosure in the Specification to preclude transmission of a modified video stream to the terminal that requests an independent frame. Therefore, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim 1 and are also not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 1, as well as the rejections of claims 2 – 19, which are not argued separately. See App. Br. 9. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 – 19 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). Appeal 2010-006532 Application 10/536,337 7 AFFIRMED ELD