Ex Parte MacInnis

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2014

11550776 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/550,776 10/18/2006 Alexander MacInnis 106861-0431 9235
121312 7590 09/25/2014
Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation
3000 K Street N.W, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20007-5109
EXAMINER
LAMONT, BENJAMIN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ALEXANDER MACINNIS

____________

Appeal 2012-000807
Application 11/550,776
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-000807
Application 11/550,776

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 14–19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to receiving a bitstream, the
bitstream having a first data stream and a second data stream, controlling the
processing rate of the second data stream based on the amount of data of the
first bitstream stored in a buffer resulting in a transport stream. A
comparator compares time stamps in the transport stream to the system time
clock and based on the comparison adjusting the system of the time clock.
See Abstract and Spec. [32]-[34].
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for processing data, said method comprising:
receiving a bitstream, said bitstream comprising a first data
stream and a second data stream, wherein the first data stream
comprises data, wherein a substantially constant number of bits
of the data are to be consumed per second;
controlling the processing rate of the second data stream
based at least in part on the rate of receipt of the first data
stream;
storing the first data stream in a buffer; and
wherein controlling the processing rate of the second data
stream further comprises controlling the processing rate of the
Appeal 2012-000807
Application 11/550,776

3
second stream based on the amount of data from the first stream
in the buffer; and
adjusting a system time clock based at least in part on a
comparison of the system time clock and time stamps from the
first data stream, wherein adjusting the system time clock
comprises adjusting a time value.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 14–19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Teng (US 6,122,668; published Sept. 19,
2000) in view of Veltman (US 5,396,497; published Mar. 7, 1995).

ISSUE
The pivotal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Teng and Veltman teaches the limitation of “wherein
adjusting the system time clock comprises adjusting a time value,” as recited
in claim 1.

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that Veltman, contrary to the Examiner’s finding,
does not teach “wherein adjusting the system time clock comprises adjusting
a time value,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in independent
claims 5 and 9 (App. Br. 7). More particularly, Appellant argues that
Veltman does not teach “adjusting a time value” because a phase lock loop
having an oscillator can be made faster by increasing the frequency (App.
Br. 8). Appellant asserts that the speed or frequency of the time base can be
increased without changing the initial time (App. Br. 9).
Appeal 2012-000807
Application 11/550,776

4
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. We adopt the Examiner’s
findings as our own, we add the following primarily for emphasis.
We start our analysis by ascertaining the meaning of the disputed
terms “adjusting a time value.” Appellant’s Specification “is always highly
relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the
single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” See Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). Appellant
has pointed us to (App. Br. 5) paragraph [34] for support of the limitation
“adjusting a time value.” Paragraph [34] states that “[b]ased on the
comparison of the times stamps to the system time clock, the comparator
adjusts the system time clock.” Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 14)
that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “adjusting a time
value” in light of Appellant’s Specification is adjusting a time clock.
Accordingly, we also agree with the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 14) that
Veltman’s teaching of adjusting a PLL clock (also referred to as a frame rate
clock in Veltman) based on timestamps (col. 10, ll. 62–67 and col. 11, ll.
10–16) meets claim’s 1 requirement of adjusting a time value.
We further agree with the Examiner’s interpretation (Ans. 14–15) that
adjusting a frame rate to speed up the clock if the frame rate is too slow
(col. 11, ll. 13–14) does constitute adjusting a time value because it changes
the amount of time between frames. To the extent that Appellant is arguing
that Veltman adjusts frequency, not time, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding that frequency and time are related by the equation of T = 1/f (Ans.
15). So adjusting the frequency (f) of a clock necessitates a change in period
or “time value” of a clock (Ans. 15). We note that Appellant did not
respond to this Examiner’s finding regarding the relationship of frequency
Appeal 2012-000807
Application 11/550,776

5
and time with respect to this equation, but rather repeats and expands on
differences between time and frequency (Reply Br. 10–12).
With respect to Appellant’s newly raised arguments in the Reply
Brief, we will not address them (Reply Br. 13–16) because those arguments
could have been presented earlier. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473,
1474 (BPAI 2010) (Informative) (“[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity
to make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on
appeal to rebut the Examiner’s rejections.”).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claim 1 and for
the same reasons the rejections of claims 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 14–19.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Teng and
Veltman teaches the limitation of “adjusting a system time clock based at
least in part on a comparison of the system time clock and time stamps from
the first data stream, wherein adjusting the system time clock comprises
adjusting a time value,” as recited in claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 14–
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).

AFFIRMED

tj