Ex Parte Pope et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 12, 2014

10548121 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte STEVE POPE, DEREK ROBERTS,
DAVID J. RIDDOCH, and DAVID CLARKE
____________________

Appeal 2011-012304
Application 10/548,121
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before: CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JAMES P. CALVE, and
LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.

GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
15 and 17-25. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The claims are directed to a data transmission with constant data rate.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for forming data received from a data
source into frames, the method comprising:
forming a frame for transmission over a data link
according to a protocol in which data is carried as variable
length data frames that can differ in bit length and in which
once transmission of the data frame begun the entirety of the
data frame must be transmitted, and in which the data is to be
transmitted at no less than a determined data rate by:
(a) including in the frame traffic data formed from data
received for transmission from the data source;
(b) determining that insufficient data received for
transmission from the data source is available to transmit the
frame at the determined data rate; and
(c) responsive to that determination including in the
frame padding data, the padding data being of a predetermined
format distinguishable from the traffic data.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-15 and 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Goldman (US 5,535,216, iss. Jul. 9, 1996) and Lyons (US
(6,330,286 B1, iss. Dec. 11, 2001). Ans. 4.

OPINION
In rejecting each of the independent claims involved in this appeal,
claims 1, 13, and 25, the Examiner relies on Lyons as teaching the recited
“protocol in which data is carried as variable length data frames that can
Appeal 2011-012304
Application 10/548,121
3
differ in bit length.” Ans. 5-6, 9-10. To meet this limitation, the Examiner
cites a disclosure in Lyons that states, “it is entirely possible to convert a
Constant Bitrate (CBR) bitstream to a Variable Bitrate (VBR) bitstream by
detecting the padding and stuffing needed to create a CBR.” Id. at 5, citing
Lyons, col. 13, ll. 4-10. As Appellants correctly point out, this disclosure
refers to “a bitstream in which a throughput of bits varies. It does not teach
a bitstream in which variable length data frames can differ in bit lengths; for
example, a higher bitrate can send the same length frames at a faster rate.”
See Reply Br. 3. The Examiner has not explained why a teaching of
converting a constant rate bitstream to a variable rate bitstream teaches
“variable length data frames differing in bit length.” The Examiner has not
established that variation of a bit transfer rate necessarily requires variation
of a bit length. Furthermore, the Examiner has not established why
incorporating the cited portion of Lyons into Goldman would result in “a
protocol in which data is carried [in such frames],” or “forming a frame for
transmission over a data link according to [such a protocol],” as recited in
independent claims 1 and 25. The Examiner provides the same analysis of
claim 13, which contains a similar limitation. The Examiner does not cite to
any other evidence to account for this deficiency. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejections.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.

REVERSED

mls