Ex Parte Lynch

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 18, 2016

12223764 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/223,764 12/18/2008
24498 7590 04/20/2016
Robert D, Shedd, Patent Operations
THOMSON Licensing LLC
4 Research Way
3rd Floor
Princeton, NJ 08543
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Johnston Lynch
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.
PU060019 2559
EXAMINER
HASAN, SYED Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/20/2016 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):
uspto@technicolor.com
pat. verlangieri@technicolor.com
russell. smith@technicolor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID JOHNSTON LYNCH
Appeal2014--002339
Application 12/223,764
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Non-Final Rejection
of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to a method and
apparatus for adaptive transport injection for transport stream playback
Appeal2014--002339
Application 12/223,764
(Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a playback manager for managing at least one buffer to
maintain a fullness of the at least one buffer for a data
playback by adapting a data injection size, relating an amount
of data injected at a given time into the at least one buffer, to
smallest available space in the at least one buffer.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kent
West
Leon
US 7,630,612 B2
US 2002/0032844 Al
US 2004/0193762 Al
REJECTIONS
Dec. 8, 2009
Mar. 14,2002
Sept. 30, 2004
Claims 1 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Kent (Non-Final Act. 21-22).
Claims 2--4, 6, 9, 11-13, 15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Kent and West (Non-Final Act. 22-25).
Claims 5, 7, 8, 14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kent, West, and Leon (Non-Final Act. 25-28).
ISSUE
35 US.C. § 102(e): Claims 1and10
Appellant argues the invention is not anticipated by Kent (App. Br.
10-19). The issue presented by the arguments are:
2
Appeal2014--002339
Application 12/223,764
Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Kent discloses "managing at
least one buffer to maintain a fullness of the at least one buffer for a data
playback by adapting a data injection size, relating an amount of data
injected at a given time into the at least one buffer, to smallest available
space in the at least one buffer," as recited in claim 1 and commensurately
recited in claim 1 O?
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues disclosure of "a certain point of fullness" is not "a
fullness" as recited in claims 1 and 10 because "a certain point of fullness" is
an amount ranging from just one bit above empty and higher while the
recited "fullness" "thus essentially involve[ s] an entirety of the capacity of
the buffer" (App. Br. 12). Appellant argues Kent's disclosure of the buffer
fill level' s ability to be adjusted to ensure the buffer 204 is not too full or too
low, teaches away from the recitation of claims 1 and 10 (id. at 12-13).
Initially, as a matter of claim construction, we determine the term
"fullness" is not defined explicitly in the Specification. Although Appellant
argues the terms "a certain point of fullness" and "a fullness" should be
interpreted differently (id.), we are not persuaded as Appellant has not
proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us Kent does not
disclose "managing at least one buffer to maintain a fullness of the at least
one buffer for a data playback." More specifically, the term "a fullness" as
used in the claim implies more than one "fullness" exists. Furthermore, we
agree Kent describes the playback buffer starts filling with video data in
memory and continues to fill until the buffer reaches a certain point of
fullness (Ans. 10; Kent 3:19-22).
3
Appeal2014--002339
Application 12/223,764
Appellant further argues Kent does not disclose "data injection size,"
but instead, only discloses "a certain point of fullness"; therefore, Kent does
not describe the size of data injected into the buffer but instead, describes
how full the buffer is (App. Br. 14). Moreover, according to Appellant,
Kent's discloses filling a buffer until it reaches a certain point of fullness,
but does not disclose "the smallest available space in the at least one buffer,"
as recited (id. at 14--15).
Initially, we note "data injection size" is not explicitly defined in the
Specification. Further, Appellant does not adequately map claim 1 in the
Appeal Brief, instead merely indicating "[ f]unctionality recited in the first
element is further described, e.g., at: page 8, line 28 to page 10, line 23 and
FIGs[.] 2 and 3" (App. Br. 7). Nonetheless, we find Kent does not disclose
"adapting a data injection size, relating an amount of data injected at a given
time into the at least one buffer, to smallest available space in the at least
one buffer," as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claim 10.
As noted by the Appellant, Kent discloses the buffer fill level may be
established and the buffer fill level can be adjusted to ensure the buffer is not
too full or too low (Ans. 10; App. Br. 14). Furthermore, as set forth by the
Examiner, Kent discloses "the playback buffer starts filling with video data
in memory and continues to fill until the buffer reaches a certain point of
fullness, at which time the playback buffer plays the video out on the display
device 108" (Ans. 10; Kent 3:19-22). We further agree with the Examiner
that Kent's description of a preferred embodiment adjusts a buffer level of
the playback buffer when the buffer level is not within a designated target
range (Ans. 10; Kent 1 :43-50). However, we find Kent does not disclose
the size of the data being transferred to the buffer is adjusted. Instead, Kent
4
Appeal2014--002339
Application 12/223,764
discloses merely that the buffer level is adjusted and the playback buffer is
filled until a certain level is reached.
Thus, we are constrained to find Kent does not disclose "adapting a
data injection size, relating an amount of data injected at a given time into
the at least one buffer, to smallest available space in the at least one buffer,"
as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claim 10.
Accordingly, we are cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for anticipation by Kent.
35 US.C. § 103(a): Claims 2-4, 6, 9, 11-13, 15, and 18
35 US.C. § 103(a): Claims 5, 7, 8, 14, 16, and 17
Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant's other arguments. It
follows that we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 2--4, 6, 9, 11-13, 15,
and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Kent and West; and
claims 5, 7, 8, 14, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
Kent, West, and Leon.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1and10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Kent is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 2--4, 6, 9, 11-13, 15, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kent and West is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 5, 7, 8, 14, 16, and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kent, West, and Leon is
reversed.
REVERSED
5