Ex Parte Priddle et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 26, 2016

13007890 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/007,890 01/17/2011 Clinton Priddle 24112 7590 04/26/2016 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC 1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300 Cary, NC 27518 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. 4015-7298/P30956-US2 7710 EXAMINER WON, MICHAEL YOUNG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2449 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 04/26/2016 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 CLINTON PRIDDLE, PER FROJDH, THORSTEN LOHMAR, and ZHUANGFEI WU1 Appeal2014-006428 Application 13/007,890 Technology Center 2400 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JASON V. MORGAN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. Invention The application relates to video content which specifies the technical capabilities required for playback, such as a maximum bit rate. App. Br. 2- 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal2014-006428 Application 13/007,890 3; Spec. i-f 5. These technical capabilities are called "level requirements." According to Appellants, the level requirement for a video are usually provided only for a regular playout rate, while the claimed invention relates to specifying level requirements for non-regular playout rates, such as fast forward or slow motion. Spec. i-f 8, Abstract. If a device does not support the level requirement for a given playout rate, then the device will not try to play the video at that playout rate. Id. Exemplary Claim Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with key limitations emphasized: 1. A method in a client node for supporting a decision on decoding and playout of a certain content, the method compnsmg: obtaining information related to said certain content regarding level requirements associated with one or more playout rates for said certain content, said one or more playout rates being different than a predefined regular playout rate for said certain content; determining, based on the obtained information regarding said level requirements, which of said one or more playout rates is supported by the client node, to thereby enable the client node to refrain from attempting to decode and play out said certain content at a playout rate that has a level requirement which is not supported by the client node. Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1-9, 11-14, and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Soroushian (US 2011/0129202; June 2, 2011) in view of the Applicant Admitted Prior Art (i-fi-f 3-18 of the application) ("AAP A"). Final Act. 6. 2 Appeal2014-006428 Application 13/007,890 The Examiner rejects claims 10 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Soroushian in view of the AAP A and in further view of Chen (US 2011/0099594; Apr. 28, 2011). ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that Soroushian in view of the admitted prior art teaches or suggests a "level requirement associated with one or more playout rates ... different than a predefined regular playout rate" as recited by independent claim 1 and commensurately recited by independent claims 13, 18, and 19? ANALYSIS Both Appellants and the Examiner agree a combination of Soroushian and the AAP A would have multiple playout rates (e.g., regular speed and fast forward) and a level requirement specified for a regular playout rate, but Appellants contend such a combination fails to teach or suggest a level requirement for a non-regular playout rate. We agree it does not. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Soroushian teaches a video specifying a level requirement and the AAP A teaches multiple playback rates, such as both regular speed and fast forward. Final Act. 6-7. The Examiner therefore finds the combination of Soroushian and the AAP A would not only include playback at a non-regular playout rate, but also that a level requirement would be provided for each playout rate. Id. Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Soroushian' s level requirement is "not associated generally with any given playout rate" but rather is "very specifically associated just with the regular rate." Reply Br. 3 (emphasis added). Because the AAP A also teaches the level requirement is associated with the regular rate, Appellants contend that "nothing in 3 Appeal2014-006428 Application 13/007,890 Soroushian or AAP A suggests deviating from that conventional approach." Id. 2-3. Appellants' arguments are persuasive because the Examiner has not shown that either Soroushian or the AAP A teaches or suggests level requirements for any playout rate other than the regular rate. The Examiner determines "in Soroushian, taken alone, level requirement is associated with the predefined regular playout rate." Ans. 3 (emphasis added). The AAP A similarly teaches "it is the level required for playing out this regular playout rate that is indicated." Spec. i-f 8 (emphasis added). As the Appellants point out, nothing in the cited portions of Soroushian or the AAP A suggests deviating by providing a level requirement for a non-regular playout rate. Put another way, if the AAP A allowed fast forwarding despite the indicated level requirement being for a regular playout rate, then the Examiner has not shown why Soroushian alone or in combination would be any different. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner;s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-9, 11-14, and 16-19, which stand with their respective independent claims. Claims 10 and 15, rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over Soroushian, the AAP A, and Chen, additionally stand with their respective independent claims as the Examiner has not shown Chen cures the deficiencies of Soroushian and the AAP A. Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-19. REVERSED 4