Ex Parte Kowalski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2016

12257232 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/257,232 10/23/2008 Francois-Xavier Kowalski
56436 7590 04/28/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82244771 6665
EXAMINER
ADAMS, EILEEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANCOIS-XAVIER KOWALSKI, BO SHEN, RICH ELLISON,
and JACQUES MICHELET
Appeal2014-005433
Application 12/257,232
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1---6 and 8-21. Claim 7 has been
canceled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, L.P. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-005433
Application 12/257 ,232
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 'Invention
Appellants' invention generally relates to recording a video data
stream formed of key frames interposed by a plurality of delta frames,
comprising decoding received video frames, determining whether a received
key frame is available to form an initial key frame of stored video data and,
if not, generating the initial key frame from one or more decoded video
frames, and storing the initial key frame and subsequent received video
frames. Spec., Abstract. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A method of recording a video data stream formed of key
frames interposed by a plurality of delta frames, comprising:
decoding received video frames;
determining whether a received key frame is available to
form an initial key frame of stored video data and, if not,
generating the initial key frame from one or more decoded delta
video frames; and
storing the initial key frame and subsequent received video
frames.
Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 15, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ho (US
2007/0092004 Al; Apr. 26, 2007) and Kim (US 2003/0091331 Al; May 15,
2003). Final Act. 4--10.
Claims 2, 13, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Ho, Kim, and Ando (US
2005/0254787 Al; Nov. 17, 2005). Final Act. 10-11.
2
Appeal2014-005433
Application 12/257 ,232
Claims 5, 6, 11, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Ho, Kim, and Matsuyama (US
2008/0186392 Al, Aug. 7, 2008). Final Act. 12-15.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Ho, Kim, Dureau (US 2007 /0234395
Al; Oct. 4, 2007), Hord (US 2004/0034874 Al; Feb. 19, 2004), and Ando.
Final Act. 16-17.
Claims 12 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Ho, Kim, and Rodriguez (US
2002/0168178 Al, Nov. 14, 2002). Final Act. 18-19.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Ho, Kim, Dureau, and Hord. Final
Act. 19-20.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Ho, Kim, and Dureau. Final Act. 20.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 8-25, and the Reply Brief, pages 1-11.
Claim 1
Issue 1 : Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Ho
and Kim teaches or suggests "determining whether a received key frame is
available to form an initial key frame of stored video data and, if not,
generating the initial key frame from one or more decoded delta video
frames," as recited in claim 1?
3
Appeal2014-005433
Application 12/257 ,232
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Ho and Kim teaches or suggests "determining whether a received key frame
is available to form an initial key frame of stored video data and, if not,
generating the initial key frame from one or more decoded delta video
frames," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8-13; Reply Br. 1-3. Appellants
contend Kim fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation because Kim
does not teach or suggest "determining whether a key frame is available to
form an initial key frame of stored video data." App. Br. 8-10. Appellants
contend Kim's I-picture has already been recorded and the recorded frames
are used for playback of the recorded portion on a television and not for
forming an initial key frame of stored video data, as required by claim 1.
App. Br. 8-9 (citing Kim i-f 26, Fig. 2A). Appellants contend "Kim's
scanning of the index file 500 to find a file entry pointing to an I-picture has
nothing to do with determining whether a received key frame is available to
form an initial key frame of stored video data, as recited in claim 1." App.
Br. 1 O; see also Reply Br. 2.
We do not find Appellants' contention persuasive. Kim relates to
reproducing a recorded digital broadcast program at speeds lower than the
recording speed. Kim i-f 2. Kim teaches that when a user issues a request for
slow playback from a particular position in the program, an index file is
scanned to locate a picture information entry pointing to the picture
corresponding to the particular location. Kim i-f 31. As found by the
Examiner (Ans. 22), Kim teaches that the microcomputer examines the
located picture information entry and determines whether it pertains to an !-
picture (e.g., a key frame (see Spec. 3:20-21)). Kim i-f 33. Kim further
teaches that the picture data for the picture corresponding to the particular
4
Appeal2014-005433
Application 12/257 ,232
location is provided to a decoder to begin the slow playback of the program.
Kim i-f 3 5. Kim, therefore, teaches or suggests determining whether a key
frame is available to form an initial key frame-the key frame corresponding
to the particular location at which the slow playback is to begin. Appellants'
contention that Kim's initial key frame is not an initial key frame of stored
data (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2) is not persuasive because the Examiner relies
on Ho for teaching storing the initial key frame. Ans. 6 (citing Ho i-f 37).
One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references individually
when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures.
See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants further contend the combination of Ho and Kim does not
teach or suggest the disputed limitation because Kim does not teach or
suggest if a received key frame is not available "generating the initial key
frame from one or more decoded delta video frames." App. Br. 11.
Appellants contend Kim, instead, teaches that "an I picture is referenced to
'build' a subsequent P picture for output from the decoder to a TV" and that
"Kim does not build a P picture without reference to a preceding I picture."
Id.; see also Reply Br. 1-2.
We do not find Appellants' contention persuasive. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Kim teaches that when the picture information entry
does not correspond to an I-picture, the microcomputer 16 searches for a
picture information entry for the next I-picture and reads the position
information contained in the entry and upon receiving data for a P-picture
corresponding to the picture information entry, the decoder builds a
complete picture with reference to the preceding I-picture. Ans. 22 (citing
Kim i-fi-133, 36). Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes Kim
5
Appeal2014-005433
Application 12/257 ,232
teaches or suggests "generating the initial key frame from one or more
decoded delta video frames." Id. Appellants essentially contend the
Examiner erred in finding Kim teaches this limitation because Kim teaches
referencing the preceding I-picture to build the P-picture. See App. Br. 11;
Reply Br. 1-2. However, claim 1 does not prohibit referencing an I-picture
to generate an initial key frame. Instead, claim 1 merely requires that the
initial key frame is generated from one or more decoded delta video frames
when a key frame is not available. Appellants' Specification provides that
upon receipt of an instruction to begin recording, "[a Jn available I-frame
may be determined as a most recently received frame, a next received video
frame or a video frame received within a predetermined number of frames."
Spec. 4:21-25. Thus, "when a received key frame is unavailable" refers to a
key frame not being a most recently received frame, a next received frame,
or a frame received within a predetermined number of frames when an
instruction to begin recording is received. Further, Appellants' Specification
provides that a delta frame "is decoded to provide a difference between []
first or preceding reconstructed video frame, generated from key frame 101,
and a second reconstructed video frame." Spec. 2: 15-18. Decoding a delta
frame, therefore, includes referencing a previously received key frame. As
such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Ho and Kim teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in combining Ho and Kim?
Appellants contend the combination of Ho and Kim is improper.
App. Br. 11-14; Reply Br. 2-3. Particularly, Appellants contend "[t]here is
6
Appeal2014-005433
Application 12/257 ,232
no reason that would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the teachings of Ho and Kim in the manner claimed in claim 1" and
the combination of Ho and Kim "would not result in the subject matter of
claim 1 in the manner that it is claimed." App. Br. 11, 13. In this regard,
Appellants contend:
[The] Examiner asserts decoding "received video frames" is
taught by Ho by the decompression of video frames retrieved
from in an input buffer 100. Thus, in Ho, the received video
frames are just starting to be processed, and have not been
compressed for subsequent storage in a storage device. In
contrast, Examiner asserts that Kim's index 500 and recorded
program discloses determining whether a received key frame is
available to form an initial key frame of stored video data. Thus,
in Kim the alleged received frames are received from storage and
have already been displayed. Receiving frames for initial
processing in Ho is very different from receiving frames from
storage according to Kim. It is respectfully submitted that these
differences alone would not have prompted one of ordinary skill
to include Kim's teachings in Ho to result in the subject matter
of claim l in the manner claimed. This is even trt1er given that
Ho's processing sequence is particularly designed to avoid
duplication of frames in the memory, and that Ho's disclosed
processing sequence has nothing to do with playback of recorded
video.
App. Br. 13.
We do not find Appellants' contentions persuasive. Appellants
essentially argue that the combination is improper because the teachings of
Kim cannot be bodily incorporated into Ho's processing system. However,
"it is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically
combinable to render obvious the invention under review." In re Sneed, 710
F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The relevant inquiry is whether the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in
7
Appeal2014-005433
Application 12/257 ,232
the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding the combination of Ho and Kim, the Examiner finds:
manipulation of I, P, and B frames form the basis of trick play
operations and because of the benefit taught by Kim to allow the
user the flexibility to perform trick play operations at low
playback speeds where the system of HO would benefit, for
example, if the user desired [] an accurate and slower method of
playback of video.
Ans. 22-23. As such, the Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with
a rationale underpinning for combining the teachings of Ho and Kim. In re
Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Examiner's findings are
reasonable because the skilled artisan would "be able to fit the teachings of
multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle" since the skilled artisan is
"a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420-21 (2007). Appellants do not present
evidence that the resulting arrangement vvas "uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious
step over the prior art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in combining Ho and Kim.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 and claims 4, 6, 9, 11-13, 15, and 17-19, which Appellants
have either not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated
substantially the same arguments as those discussed supra with respect to
claim 1. See App. Br. 15-19, 23.
8
Appeal2014-005433
Application 12/257 ,232
Claim 3
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Ho and
Kim teaches or suggests "wherein received video frames are directly stored
subsequent to the initial key frame," as recited in claim 3?
Appellants contend the combination of Ho and Kim does not teach or
suggest the disputed limitation because:
Ho's decoder 12, encoder 14, and display controller 18 process
frames in a particular sequence so that frames do not have to be
duplicated or moved from one memory location to another
during processing. [The] Examiner has not shown where Ho's
processing includes directly storing video frames after a storing
a key frame. Rather, Ho's decoder decompresses all frames and
his encoder compresses such decompressed frame before they
are written to the output buffer 116.
App. Br. 14 (citing Ho i-f 25) (internal citation omitted). Appellants contend
"Ho's decompression and recompression of frames is the opposite of direct
storage." Reply Br. 4.
We do not find Appellants' contention persuasive. The Examiner
finds (Ans. 24), and we agree, Ho teaches "[d]uring time interval TO, the
video decoder 12 retrieves the compressed IO frame from the input buffer
100, decodes the compressed IO frame to generate a higher bit-rate
decompressed frame IO, and writes the decompressed frame IO frame to the
encode stage 1 buffer 106." Ho i-f 38. The Examiner further finds (Ans. 24),
and we agree, Ho teaches "[d]uring time interval Tl, the video decoder 12
retrieves the compressed P3 frame from the input buffer 100, decodes the
compressed P3 frame" to generate a higher bit-rate decompressed "frame
and generates a decompressed P3 frame, and writes the decompressed P3
9
Appeal2014-005433
Application 12/257 ,232
frame to the encode stage 2 buffer 108." Ho il 39. Ho teaches performing a
similar process for subsequently received frames during subsequent time
intervals. Ho i-fi-1 40-46. Because Ho teaches storing a frame received from
input buff er 100 during each time interval subsequent to the time interval
during which decompressed frame IO (e.g., the initial key frame) is stored,
Ho teaches or suggests that the frames are directly stored subsequent to the
storage of the initial key frame.
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 3.
Claim 21
Issue 4: Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Ho and
Kim teaches or suggests "wherein determining whether a received key frame
is available to form an initial key frame of stored video data comprises
determining if an I frame is a currently received frame, a next currently
received frame, or a frame received within a predetermined number of
frames," as recited in claim 21?
Appellants contend the combination of Ho and Kim does not teach or
suggest the disputed limitation because:
Kim scans an index 500 for an index entry containing an I
picture. It is only after an I picture is located in the index that
recorded data is downloaded to Kim's decoder. As such, Kim
does not receive a current frame and determine if the currently
received frame is an I frame, if a next currently received frame is
an I frame, or if a frame received within a predetermined number
of frames is an I frame.
App. Br. 15.
10
Appeal2014-005433
Application 12/257 ,232
We do not find Appellants' contention persuasive. Kim teaches "if
the user issues a request for fast rewind to the position of 1 minute ago and
1I6 x speed playback from the position, the microcomputer 16 scans the
index file 500 for the picture information entry pointing to the picture of the
desired position, starting from the latest picture information entry" and
determines whether that entry pertains to an I-picture. Kim i-f 31. Kim
further teaches "[i]n the case where the program contains 30 frames/sec, the
wanted picture information entry is the 1800th ( 60x30) entry backward from
the last one." Kim i-f 32. As such, Kim teaches or suggests that determining
whether an I-picture (e.g., a received key frame) is available to form an
initial key frame of stored video data comprises determining if an I frame is
a frame received within a predetermined number (e.g., 1800) of frames.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 21.
Claim 10
Issue 5: Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Ho and
Kim teaches or suggests "wherein the data storage unit is to directly store
received video frames subsequent to the initial key frame without decoding
the subsequently received video frames," as recited in claim 1 O?
Appellants contend the combination of Ho and Kim does not teach or
suggest the disputed limitation because:
Ho's decoder 12, encoder 14, and display controller 18 process
frames in a particular sequence so that frames do not have to be
duplicated or moved from one memory location to another
during processing. As such, Ho discloses decompressing and
11
Appeal2014-005433
Application 12/257 ,232
subsequent compressing of all received frames before they are
written to output buffer 116 for subsequent storage. Receiving
compressed frames in an input buffer 100 does not negate Ho's
other teachings, which includes the decoder decompressing the
compressed frames held in the input buffer.
App. Br. 17 (citing Ho i-f 25) (internal citation omitted).
We do not find Appellants' contention persuasive. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Ho teaches writing compressed frame IO (e.g., an initial
key frame) to input buffer 100 before time interval TO. Ans. 26 (citing Ho
i-f 37). The Examiner also finds, and we agree, Ho teaches storing a
subsequently received video frame during each subsequent time interval. Id.
Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes Ho teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation. Id. Contrary to Appellants' contention (App. Br. 17),
claim 10 does not prohibit the decoding of the video frames after storage.
Instead, claim 10 merely requires that the subsequently received video
frames are stored without being decoded. As such, Appellants' contention is
not commensurate with the scope of the claim and, therefore, unpersuasive
of error.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue for the first time:
In Ho, the input buffer 100 stores higher bit-rate
compressed frames and the output buffer 116 stores lower bit-
rate compressed frames for delivery to a storage device. Ho's
decompressing and recompressing occurs there between. There
is no indication that a formed or generated initial key frame is
stored in Ho's input buffer 100.
Reply Br. 5---6 (citing Ho i-f 13) (internal citation omitted). As this argument
is not responsive to an argument presented for the first time in the
Examiner's Answer (see Final Act. 8), and good cause has not been shown
as to why the argument was not earlier presented, the argument will not be
12
Appeal2014-005433
Application 12/257 ,232
considered for the purposes of this appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 0.
Claim 2
Issue 6: Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Ho, Kim,
and Ando teaches or suggests "wherein the decoding of received video
frames is stopped following generation of the initial key frame," as recited in
claim 2?
Appellants contend the combination of Ho, Kim, and Ando does not
teach or suggest the disputed limitation because the portions of Ando relied
upon by the Examiner "discuss disadvantages concerning seamless
reproduction with respect to a still picture" and "teachings of disadvantages
would not incline one of ordinary skill in the art to employ such teachings,
and thus would teach away from a hypothetical combination." App. Br. 19.
We do not find Appellants' contention persuasive. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Ando teaches temporarily stopping a decode process of
a video recorder upon detecting a sequence end code arranged immediately
after an I-picture corresponding to a still picture. Ans. 10 (citing Ando
i-f 31 ). Ando teaches "[i]n the current DVD video, it is difficult to perform
the multi-angle reproduction in which slide shows of still pictures (still
picture content) are combined or the multi-angle reproduction in which the
slide show of the still pictures is combined with the moving picture." Ando
i-f 31. We disagree that Ando teaches away from the combination because
13
Appeal2014-005433
Application 12/257 ,232
Ando does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution
claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Instead, Ando
merely states certain aspects of multi-angle reproduction are difficult to
perform. Further, Appellants have not persuasively shown that this
statement suggests that the developments flowing from its disclosures are
unlikely to produce the objective of the Appellants' invention. Syntex
(US.A.) LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue for the first time that the
combination is improper, and therefore does not teach the disputed
limitation, because "stopping decoding would render Ho inoperable to
decode video that is compressed at a high bit-rate and recompress the
decoded video at a lower bit-rate" and "[s]topping decoding would disable
Kim's playback mode as requested by a user of Kim." Reply Br. 7, 8. As
this argument is not responsive to an argument presented for the first time in
the Examiner's Answer (see Final Act. 10), and good cause has not been
shown as to why the argument was not earlier presented, the argument will
not be considered for the purposes of this appeal. 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.41 (b )(2 ).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 2.
Claim 16
Issue 7: Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Ho, Kim,
and Ando teaches or suggests "wherein the decoder is to stop decoding
received video frames in response to storage of the formed or generated
initial key frame," as recited in claim 16?
14
Appeal2014-005433
Application 12/257 ,232
Appellants contend the combination of Ho, Kim, and Ando does not
teach or suggest the disputed limitation because:
The problem described by Ando is that for a still picture data
structure, a sequence end code is immediately after an I picture.
Thus, the decoder stops when it detects the end code. The stop
is temporary; the decoder starts when the next I picture is input.
In other words, in Ando the decoder temporarily stops because it
detects an end code. Thus, none of the cited references disclose
a decoder that responds to storage of a formed or generated initial
key frame by stopping decoding of received video frames.
App. Br. 20 (citing Ando i-f 28) (internal citation omitted).
We do not find Appellants' contention persuasive. Non-obviousness
cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the
rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re
Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the
Examiner finds Ho teaches a control unit to "store the formed or generated
initial key frame in the storage." Ans. 9 (referencing Ans. 6 (citing Ho
i-fi-137, 39)). The Examiner finds Ando teaches stopping decoding of
received video frames. Ans. 28-29 (citing Ando i-f 31 ). Based on these
findings, the Examiner concludes the combination of references teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation. Id. Appellants' contention fails to address
the combined teachings of the references and, therefore, is unpersuasive of
error.
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 16.
Claim 5
Issue 8: Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Ho, Kim,
15
Appeal2014-005433
Application 12/257 ,232
and Matsuyama teaches or suggests "determining whether a next video
frame received immediately following the one or more delta video frames
from which the initial key frame was generated is a further key frame and, in
response, generating a delta frame to replace the further key frame in the
stored video data," as recited in claim 5?
Appellants contend the applied references do not teach or suggest the
disputed limitation because
Kim discloses a P-picture for output from the decoder for
playback on the TV. The P-picture is built with reference to and
after I picture data. Thus, [the] Examiner has not shown that Kim
discloses determining whether a next video frame received
immediately following the one or more delta video frames from
which the initial key frame was generated is a further key frame.
Merely stating that Ho generates an initial key frame does not the
claim language as written-according to claim 5, the initial key
frame was generated from one or more delta frames.
Third, [the] Examiner asserts that l\1atsuyama discloses
generating a delta frame to replace the further key frame. The
claim, however, recites in response (to determining whether a
next video frame received immediately following the one or
more delta video frames from which the initial key frame was
generated is a further key frame), generating a delta frame to
replace the further key frame. Matsuyama does no such thing.
App. Br. 21 (citing Kim i-f 36).
We do not find Appellants' contentions persuasive. The Examiner
finds the combination of Ho, Kim, and Matsuyama teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations. Final Act. 12-13; Ans. 29-30. Appellants' contentions
are directed to the separate teachings of the individual references and fail to
address the combined teachings of the applied references. As such,
Appellants' contentions are unpersuasive of error. See In re Merck & Co.
16
Appeal2014-005433
Application 12/257 ,232
Inc., 800 F .2d at 1097.
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 5.
Claim 8
Issue 9: Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Ho, Kim,
Dureau, Hord, and Ando teaches or suggests "wherein the initial key frame
is generated from a frame transmitted ahead of one or more B-frames, and
the one or more B-frames are stored without decoding subsequent to the
initial key frame," as recited in claim 8?
Appellants contend the combination of Ho, Kim, Dureau, Hord, and
Ando does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation because Ando teaches
away from stopping decoding. App. Br. 22. Appellants further contend
Dureau does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation because "Dureau
merely discloses that if a viewer changes channels, he or she may have to
wait for the next I frame before decoding subsequently received B frames
and P frames." App. Br. 22 (citing Dureau i-f 7). Appellants contend
"Dureau indicates such waiting is disadvantageous" and "teachings of
disadvantages would not incline one of ordinary skill in the art to employ
such teachings, and thus would teach away from a hypothetical
combination." App. Br. 22. Appellants further contend:
Hord merely indicates that different types of frames may be
stored in different picture buffers. As Ho's processing takes
place according to a particular sequence, it is respectfully
submitted that there is no reason to modify Ho's buffering to
achieve that particular sequence.
App. Br. 23.
17
Appeal2014-005433
Application 12/257 ,232
We do not find Appellants' contentions persuasive. Appellants'
contentions are similar to those presented regarding the patentability of
claim 10. Similarly, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 8 for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 10.
Claim 14
Issue 10: Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Ho,
Kim, Dureau, and Hord teaches or suggests "wherein the control unit is to
control the encoder to generate the initial key frame from a video frame
transmitted ahead of one or more B-frames, and the data storage unit is to
store the B-frames following the initial key frame," as recited in claim 14?
Appellants contend the combination of Ho, Kim, Dureau, and Hord
does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation. App. Br. 23-24.
Particularly, Appellants substantially reiterate the contents provided for
patentability of claim 10. See App. Br. 23-24. We find these contents
unpersuasive for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 10.
Appellants further contend:
none of Kim, Ho, or Dureau discloses generating an initial key
frame from one or more decoded delta video frames, as such,
none of these references discloses wherein the control unit is to
control the encoder to generate the initial key frame from a video
frame transmitted ahead of one or more B-frames, as recited in
claim 14.
App. Br. 24.
The Examiner finds the combination of Ho and Kim teaches or
suggests a control unit for controlling an encoder to generate an initial key
frame. Ans. 20, 7-8. The Examiner finds Dureau teaches or suggests a key
18
Appeal2014-005433
Application 12/257 ,232
frame generated from a video frame transmitted ahead of one or more B-
frames. Ans. 20, 16 (citing Dureau i-f 7). The Examiner finds Hord teaches
or suggests a data storage unit for storing the B-frames following the initial
key frame. Ans. 20, 17 (citing Hord i-f 39). Appellant offers no explanation
or reasoning as to how or why the cited portions of the applied references
fail to teach or suggest the respective limitations, we therefore determine
these arguments to be unpersuasive. See 37 CPR§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("The
arguments shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of
rejection contested by [A ]ppellant. . . . [A ]ny arguments or authorities not
included in the appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for
purposes of the present appeal.") (Emphasis added.) Moreover, arguments
not made are deemed waived. See id. Cf In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952
F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court to
examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an [A ]ppellant, looking
for nonobvious distinctions over the prior art."). As such, Appellants'
contentions are not persuasive of error.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 14.
Claim 20
Issue 11: Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Ho,
Kim, and Dureau teaches or suggests "wherein the encoder is to generate the
initial key frame from a frame transmitted ahead of one or more B-frames,"
as recited in claim 20?
In arguing the patentability of claim 20, Appellants reiterate
19
Appeal2014-005433
Application 12/257 ,232
arguments presented for the patentability of claims 8 and 14. See App.
Br. 22-25.
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 20 for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 14.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6 and 8-21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
20