Ex Parte Oh

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2016

12783756 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
121783,756
33942 7590
Cha & Reiter, LLC
17 Arcadian A venue
Suite 208
Paramus, NJ 07652
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
05/20/2010 Kyu-BongOh
04/28/2016
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.
4500-1-074 7453
EXAMINER
ROSE, DERRICK V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2016 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 KYU-BONG OH
Appeal2014-006872
Application 12/837,756
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and JOYCE
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1 and 3-18, which are all the claims pending in this application. 2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Samsung Industrial
Electronics Co., Ltd. (App. Br. 3).
2 Claim 2 has been canceled.
Appeal2014-006872
Application 12/837,756
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to synchronization between the video
and the audio in a mobile communication terminal (see Spec. i-f 2).
Exemplary claims 1 and 13 under appeal read as follows:
1. A method for synchronization between video data
and audio data in a mobile communication terminal, the method
compnsmg:
acquiring Presentation Time Stamp (PTS) information
for each of audio data and video data which need to be played
simultaneously, the PTS information indicating a play time of
the corresponding data;
determining a delay time between the mobile
communication terminal and a wireless device, the wireless
device playing one data of the audio data and the video data;
generating new PTS information for the one data played
by the wireless device by reflecting the determined delay time
in the acquired PTS information;
outputting the one data and the other data using the new
PTS information for the one data and the acquired PTS
information for the other data, respectively, wherein the one
data and the other data are synchronized by a synchronizer in
the mobile communication terminal, and further comprising:
transmitting the one data to the wireless device to be
played by said wireless device in synchronicity with the other
data being played locally by a player of the mobile
communication terminal.
13. A portable terminal comprising:
a wireless transmitter including an interface; and
a processor in communication with a memory, the
memory including code which when accessed by the processor
causes the processor to:
acquire PTS information associated with video data and
audio data to be viewed, the PTS information providing timing
2
Appeal2014-006872
Application 12/837,756
information for outputting corresponding video data and audio
data;
transmit, through the transmitter, a polling packet;
receive, through the transmitter, a reply packet in
response to poll packet;
determine a delay time between a time of poll packet
transmission and the time of receipt of the reply packet;
adjust the acquired PTS information timing based on the
determined delay time; and
output one of the video data and the audio data at the
acquired PTS information time for playing locally by a player
of the portable terminal in synchronicity with another output of
the other one of the video data and the audio data at the
adjusted PTS information time.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Agren (US 2008/0291863 Al, published Nov. 27,
2008) and Hwang (US 2006/0203853 Al, published Sept. 14, 2006) (see
Ans. 2-8).
Claims 13-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Agren and Kanayama (US 7 ,065,391 B2, issued June 20, 2006) (see
Ans. 8-11).
Claims 4 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Agren, Hwang, Kanayama, and Fourcand (US 7,787,498
B2, published Aug. 31, 2010) (see Ans. 12-15).
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Agren as disclosing all the
recited method steps except for "wherein the one data and the other data are
3
Appeal2014-006872
Application 12/837,756
synchronized by a synchronizer in the mobile communication terminal" and
"transmitting the one data to the wireless device to be played by said
wireless device in synchronicity with the other data being played locally by
a player of the mobile communication terminal" (Ans. 2-3). The Examiner
finds Hwang' s disclosure in paragraph 3 8 teaches synchronizing the one
data and the other data and the recited step of transmitting the one data to the
wireless device (Ans. 3--4). The Examiner concludes it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hwang
and Agren in order to achieve synchronization of MPEG streams (Ans. 4
(citing Hwang i-f 2)).
Appellant contends the proposed combination is improper because
Hwang discloses a synchronization for a receiver and not a transmitter (App.
Br. 8-10). In particular, Appellant points to Figure 8 and paragraph 38 of
Hwang and asserts the cited portions of Hwang do not disclose transmitting
the one data to a wireless device, as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 11 ). The
Examiner responds the proposed combination is based on combining the
synchronization scheme of Hwang with the transmitter of Agren (Ans. 16).
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's contention and agree with the Examiner
that Hwang was relied on as disclosing synchronization of extracted data,
which would be applicable to the transmitter of Agren. As the Examiner
finds (id.), Agren teaches transmitting a second communication packet to
generate a timestamp and synchronizing a first communication signal by
relay and sink devices (see Agren i-fi-113, 104).
Next, Appellant argues the combination of Hwang with Agren is
improper because paragraph 88 of Agren discloses that "a rate of data output
by the audio codec 1112 is adjusted according to a desired output latency,"
4
Appeal2014-006872
Application 12/837,756
which is different from "generating new PTS information" recited in claim 1
(App. Br. 12). Appellant further argues the cited passages in paragraphs 79
and 85 of Agren relate to an audio codec and would not teach or suggest the
claimed "outputting the one data and the other data using the new PTS
information .. . "(id.). We are not persuaded of Examiner error. As
explained by the Examiner (Ans. 19), Agren generates new time stamps
based on an estimation of the previous data delay, which teaches or suggests
synchronizing the one data to be transmitted with the other data (see Agren
i-f 13, Fig. 14,).
Appellant further argues the combination of Agren and Hwang is
improper because the Examiner has not provided any articulated reasons
with some rational underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness
(App. Br. 9). We disagree. The Examiner has stated the proposed
combination provides for audio and video data synchronization for MPEG
streams (Ans. 4 (citing Hwang ,-r 2)). As further explained by the Examiner
(Ans. 17), and consistent with the guidelines stated in KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Examiner has identified
improvements made by the combination to the method of Agren for reducing
transmission and synchronization problems. Indeed, the Supreme Court has
indicated that:
[It is error to] assum[ e] that a person of ordinary skill attempting
to solve a problem will be led only to those elements of prior art
designed to solve the same problem .... Common sense teaches
. . . that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their
primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill
will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like
pieces of a puzzle.
5
Appeal2014-006872
Application 12/837,756
KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (citation omitted). Therefore, the Examiner has
articulated how the claimed features are suggested by the proposed
combination of the reference teachings with some rational underpinning.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
Claim 13
The Examiner finds Agren discloses all the limitations of claim 13 but
does not include a portable terminal transmitting a polling packet and
receiving a reply packet, for which the Examiner relies on Kanayama (Ans.
8-10). Citing Figure 3 and passages in column 9 of Kanayama, the
Examiner finds the polling and reply packets between a master and a slave
teaches transmitting a polling packet and receiving a reply packet (Ans. 10).
Appellant contends the combination of Agren and Kanayama does not
teach or suggest "output one of the video data and the audio data at the
acquired PTS information time for playing locally by a player of the portable
terminal in synchronicity with another output of the other one of the video
data and the audio data at the adjusted PTS information time" recited in
claim 13 (App. Br. 14). We are not persuaded because Appellant's
conclusory statement does not address the Examiner's specific findings. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellant further argues that the combination
of Agren and Kanayama is improper because the Examiner has not provided
any articulated reasons with some rational underpinning to support the
conclusion of obviousness (App. Br. 15). Similar to our discussion of claim
1 above, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner's articulated reasoning (see
Ans. 10, 19-20) does not support the conclusion of obviousness. "[W]hen a
patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same
function it had been known to perform' and yields no more than one would
6
Appeal2014-006872
Application 12/837,756
expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." KSR, 550
U.S. at 417 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)).
The operative question is "whether the improvement is more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions." Id.
CONCLUSION
As discussed herein, Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us
that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Agren with Hwang or
Kanayama teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claims 1 and 13.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of independent
claims 1 and 13, as well as claims 3-12 and 14--18 which are not argued
separately.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 3-18 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7