Ex Parte Luthra

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 15, 2016

12643252 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/643,252 12/21/2009 124169 7590 03/17/2016 BRAKE HUGHES BELLERMANN LLP c/o CPA Global PO Box 52050 Minneapolis, MN 55402 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ajay Luthra 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. 0120-008001 4143 EXAMINER WILLIAMS, JEFFERY A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2488 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/17/2016 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): docketing@cpaglobal.com uspto@brakehughes.com mark@brakehughes.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte AJAYLUTHRA Appeal2014-006611 Application 12/643,252 1 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., KEVIN C. TROCK, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1---6, 8-10, and 17-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant indicate the real party in interest is Motorola Mobility LLC. Br. 3. 2 Claims 7 and 11-16 are cancelled. Br. 9-11. Appeal2014-006611 Application 12/643,252 Invention The claims are directed to a transcoding method and device configured to transcode a scalable video coded stream to a single layer encoded video stream for a receiving device. Abstract. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A transcoding device configured to transcode a scalable video coding (SVC) video stream to a single layer advanced video coding (A VC) video stream, the transcoding device comprising: an interface connecting a receiving device to the transcoding device, wherein the receiving device is configured to receive an encoded video stream and determine whether the encoded video stream includes the SVC stream; and a transcoder receiving the SVC stream via the interface from the receiving device in response to the receiving device determining the encoded video stream includes the SVC stream, and the transcoder generating the single layer A VC encoded video stream from the SVC coded stream based on coding parameters describing parameters of the single layer A VC video stream, wherein the single layer encoded A VC video stream is sent to the receiving device via the interface. Rejection Claims 1---6, 8-10, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Londero (US 2011/0007821 Al, published Jan. 13, 2011) and Eleftheriadis et al. (US 2007 /0230568 Al, published Oct. 4, 2007). 2 Appeal2014-006611 Application 12/643,252 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of record in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken; and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis as follows. Independent Claims 1, 17, and 20 Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 17, and 20 because the combination of Londero and Eleftheriadis fails to teach or suggest "sending the SVC coded stream to the external transcoding device via the second interface" in response to "determin[ing] the encoded video stream includes the SVC stream." Br. 5. Appellant also contends the combination fails to teach or suggest "determining whether the MPEG stream includes the SVC coded stream" and "transcoding the SVC coded stream to generate the a single layer A VC encoded MP EG video stream from the SVC coded stream" in response to "determining the MPEG stream includes the SVC coded stream." Br. 6, 7. Appellant argues Londero's television apparatus 2 is incapable of receiving broadcast video signals encoded in accordance with the MPEG-4 standard and is also incapable of deciding whether to transmit a video stream to a transcoding device. Br. 6. 7. The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, Londero teaches: 3 Appeal2014-006611 Application 12/643,252 a transcoder (1) receiving the first stream [0034] via the interface (20) from the receiving device (2) in response to the receiving device determining the encoded video stream includes the first stream ([0034], the receiving device receives the MPEG4 stream which it is incapable of decoding), and the transcoder generating the second encoded video stream [0039] from the first coded stream based ([0039, the MPEG 4 stream is converted to an MPEG2 stream) Final Act. 3. The Examiner further explains, and we agree: in the case the received video stream received by the receiving unit 4 is encoded in a MPEG-4 format (i.e. a second format), the received stream is directed to a transcoding module 1 in which the MPEG-4 stream (second format) is decoded by a MPEG- 4 decoder 28 and subsequently encoded by a MPEG-2 encoder 30 for generating a MPEG-2 stream (first format) for transmission back to the television apparatus 2. Ans. 8 (citing Londero i-fi-137--40, Figs. 1, 2) The Examiner also finds, and we agree, Eleftheriadis teaches "transcoding from a scalable video coding (SVC) video stream to a single layer (A VC) video stream [0017] and generating the single layer A VC encoded video stream .... " Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Eleftherriadis into the teachings of Landero to order to allow transcoding from SVC to single layer A VC video streams for devices incapable of decoding SVC video streams. Id. We agree. Accordingly, we do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive and we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Londero and Eleftherriadis teaches "a transcoder receiving the SVC stream via the interface from the 4 Appeal2014-006611 Application 12/643,252 receiving device in response to the receiving device determining the encoded video stream includes the SVC stream, and the transcoder generating the single layer A VC encoded video stream from the SVC coded stream," as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly in independent claims 17 and 20. Remaining Claims 2-6, 8-10, 18, and 19. Appellant has not presented separate, substantive arguments with respect to remaining claims 2---6, 8-10, 18, and 19. See Br. 5-8. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6, 8-10, and 17- I"\/"\ LU. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5