Ex Parte Kaye

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 7, 2019

13276581 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/276,581 10/19/2011 James E. Kaye 102107 7590 02/11/2019 Brokaw Patent Law, PC 101 Church Street, Suite 50 Los Gatos, CA 95030 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. HRMC.Pl43 5897 EXAMINER MESSMORE, JONATHAN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2482 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/11/2019 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): chris@brokawpatentlaw.com amaloney@brokawpatentlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAMES E. KA YE Appeal 2018-003465 Application 13/276,581 Technology Center 2400 Before MARC S. HOFF, JENNIFER S. BISK, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-26, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Harmonic, Inc. App. Br. 3. Appeal2018-003465 Application 13/276,581 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Invention According to the Specification, the invention relates generally "to video and image processing." Spec. ,r 1. 2 The Specification explains that "video channels can be allocated with bit rates that are set based on a predefined video compression quality." Id. at Abstract. The Specification also explains that encoders "can pre-encode each input signal at multiple, different bit rates, and record the video compression quality value achievable at each of the bit rates" to "generate a table describing the set of video compression quality values each corresponding to a bit rate value that can be used to achieve that video compression quality value." Id.; see id. ,r,r 4, 12, 26-27. Further, "the processing requirement used in pre-encoding can be reduced by using a reduced resolution (spatially and/or temporally) version of the input video signals used in the encoding phase." Id. ,r 28. Exemplary Claim Independent claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as follows (with formatting added for clarity): 1. A system comprising: a plurality of encoders each providing, to a controller, pre-compression coding data for a channel of program content that identifies a relationship between (a) one or more bit rates and (b) corresponding video compression quality levels, 2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the Specification, filed October 19, 2011; "Final Act." for the Final Office Action, mailed March 10, 2017; "App. Br." for the Appeal Brief, filed August 11, 2017; "Ans." for the Examiner's Answer, mailed December 14, 2017; and "Reply Br." for the Reply Brief, filed February 14, 2018. 2 Appeal2018-003465 Application 13/276,581 wherein the pre-compression coding data is generated at each of the plurality of encoders by said each encoder encoding a reduced resolution version of said channel of program content a plurality of times at a different bit rate; and the controller that: receives, from each of the plurality of encoders, the pre-compression coding data; determines a total bit rate available for the system; identifies, for each of the plurality of encoders, a highest video compression quality level based on (a) the pre-compression coding data, including said parameters, and (b) the total bit rate available; and instructs each of the plurality of encoders, which sent said pre-compression coding data, to use a particular highest video compression quality level identified for that encoder. App. Br. 21 (Claims App.). The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal As evidence ofunpatentability under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a), the Examiner relies on the following prior art: Jiang et al. ("Jiang") Gu et al. ("Gu") US 7,346,106 Bl Mar. 18, 2008 US 2010/0189183 Al July 29, 2010 Yamagishi et al. ("Yamagishi") US 2010/0284295 Al Nov. 11, 2010 Sept. 29, 2011 Jones et al. ("Jones") US 2011/0235654 Al The Rejections on Appeal Claims 1--4, 8-12, 14--16, and 20-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Jones and Jiang. Final Act. 3-10. Claims 5-7 and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Jones, Jiang, and Gu. Final Act. 10-12. 3 Appeal2018-003465 Application 13/276,581 Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Jones, Jiang, and Yamagishi. Final Act. 12-13. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1-26 in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred. Based on the record before us and for the reasons explained below, we concur with Appellant's contentions that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited portions of Jones and Jiang teach or suggest a "plurality of encoders" each "encoding a reduced resolution version of' input program content "a plurality of times at a different bit rate." TheÂ§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1-4, 8-12, 14-16, and 20-26 INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1 Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because Jones and Jiang do not teach or suggest the following limitation in claim 1: "wherein the pre-compression coding data is generated at each of the plurality of encoders by said each encoder encoding a reduced resolution version of said channel of program content a plurality of times at a different bit rate." See App. Br. 10-18; Reply Br. 4--7. In particular, Appellant contends that "[t]he term resolution, in the context of digital video, refers to the number of horizontal lines composing a frame of digital video from top to bottom and the number of pixels in each line." Reply Br. 2. Appellant provides examples of different resolutions: 1920 pixels X 1080 lines ( a High Definition video frame), "720 pixels X 486 lines (a NTSC video frame), 720 pixels X 576 lines (a PAL video frame), and 1280 pixels X 720 lines ( certain HD video frames)." Id. Appellant asserts that claim 1 requires (1) a "channel of program content," e.g., "having a High Definition resolution of 4 Appeal2018-003465 Application 13/276,581 1920 X 1080," and (2) a "reduced resolution version of that very same channel of program content," e.g., "having a Standard Definition resolution of 640 X 480)." Id. at 6. Further, Appellant urges that (1) Jones "discusses the well-known prior art technique of statistical multiplexing"; (2) "[ s ]tatistical multiplexing is performed on the actual content to be encoded"; and (3) Jones "lacks any mention of encoding a reduced resolution version of program content." App. Br. 12; see Reply Br. 5-7. In addition, Appellant contends that Jiang "teaches a process for encoding program content" that "involves accepting the encoded program content rather than producing pre-compression coding data as claimed." App. Br. 15-16. Appellant also contends that Jiang's discussion of "multiple-pass variable bit rate encoding" to "set an optimized bit rate by making multiple passes through the same video content is quite different, and cannot be reasonably considered analogous to, generating pre- compression coding data." Id. at 16-1 7. In response, the Examiner explains that (1) claim 1 "state[s] 'encoding a reduced resolution version"' and (2) "Jones merely has to disclose an encoder to disclose the claimed 'encoding a reduced resolution version."' Ans. 12. The Examiner finds that paragraphs 3 and 8 in Jones disclose an encoder. Id. Further, the Examiner finds that "the multiple passes of Jiang encode a reduced resolution version of the content when they encode the content" and "the final encoding ... inherently encodes a reduces [sic] resolution version." Id. at 13. Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portions of Jones and 5 Appeal2018-003465 Application 13/276,581 Jiang teach or suggest a "plurality of encoders" each "encoding a reduced resolution version of' input program content "a plurality of times at a different bit rate" as required by claim 1. For instance, the cited portions of Jones do not indicate that the statistical multiplexing operates on reduced resolution versions of input program content. See Jones ,r,r 2--4, 8, 10-12, 14, 21, 40--42, 74, 83-84. Further, the cited portions of Jiang do not indicate that the multiple-pass variable-bit-rate encoding operates on reduced resolution versions of input program content. See Jiang 1: 17-20, 2: 14--18, Abstract, Fig. 4. The Examiner's analysis incorrectly considers encoder output-not encoder input-as the location for the required reduced resolution version. See Ans. 12-14; see also Spec. ,r,r 4, 12, 26-28, Abstract. Hence, we do not sustain theÂ§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1. INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 14 AND 24 Like claim 1, independent claims 14 and 24 require a "plurality of encoders" each "encoding a reduced resolution version of' input program content "a plurality of times at a different bit rate." App. Br. 24--25, 27-28 (Claims App.). For the reasons discussed for claim 1, we do not sustain the Â§ 103(a) rejection of claims 14 and 24. 3 DEPENDENT CLAIMS 2--4, 8-12, 15, 16, 20-23, 25, AND 26 Claims 2--4, 8-12, 25, and 26 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1; and claims 15, 16, and 20-23 depend directly or indirectly from 3 For claims 1, 14, and 24, the Examiner should consider the propriety of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112 ,r 2 due to (1) the lack of antecedent basis for the term "said parameters" in claims 1, 14, and 24 and (2) the lack of antecedent basis for the term "said channel" in claims 14 and 24. 6 Appeal2018-003465 Application 13/276,581 claim 14. For the reasons discussed for claims 1 and 14, we do not sustain theÂ§ 103(a) rejection of claims 2--4, 8-12, 15, 16, 20-23, 25, and 26. TheÂ§ 103(a) Rejections of Claims 5-7, 13, and 17-19 Claims 5-7 and 13 depend indirectly from claim 1; and claims 1 7-19 depend indirectly from claim 14. On this record, the Examiner has not shown how the additionally cited secondary references----Gu and Yamagishi----overcome the deficiency in Jones and Jiang for claims 1 and 14. Hence, we do not sustain theÂ§ 103(a) rejections of claims 5-7, 13, and 17-19. Because this determination resolves the appeal with respect to claims 1-26, we need not address Appellant's other arguments regarding Examiner error. See, e.g., Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining that an administrative agency may render a decision based on "a single dispositive issue"). DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-26. REVERSED 7