Ex Parte Quigley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2016

12036937 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/036,937 02/25/2008 Thomas J. Quigley
51472 7590 03/09/2016
GARLICK & MARKISON
P.O. BOX 160727
AUSTIN, TX 78716-0727
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.
BP6779 2934
EXAMINER
ALAM, MUSHFIKH I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/09/2016 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):
MMURDOCK@TEXASPATENTS.COM
ghmptocor@texaspatents.com
bpierotti@texaspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS J. QUIGLEY, JEYHAN KARAOGUZ,
SHERMAN (XUEMIN) CHEN, MICHAEL DOVE,
DAVID ROSMANN, and STEPHEN E. GORDON
Appeal2014-004780
Application 12/036,937 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ERIC S. FRAHM, and SCOTT B. HOWARD,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Broadcom Corporation.
(App. Br. 5).
Appeal2014-004780
Application 12/036,937
The claims are directed to reception verification/non-reception
verification of base/ enhancement video layers. (Spec. 1 ). Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for operating a source device to transport video
data representing at least one video frame to a destination device,
the method comprising:
establishing a reception verified communication link with
the destination device;
establishing a non-reception verified communication link,
separate from the reception verified communication link, with the
destination device;
coding the video data into a plurality of video layer streams
including a base video layer stream and at least one other video
layer stream;
transmitting the base video layer stream to the destination
device via the reception verified communication link;
transmitting, concurrently with the transmitting of the base
video layer stream, the at least one other video layer stream to the
destination device via the non-reception verified communication
link·
'
wherein, the at least one other video layer stream and the
base layer video stream are used to reproduce the at least one
video frame when both the at least one other video layer stream
and the base layer video stream are received at the destination
device; and
the base video layer stream is used to reproduce the at least
one video frame when the at least one other video layer stream, is
transmitted to, but not received by, the destination device.
2
Appeal2014-004780
Application 12/036,937
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Gotwald
Umezaki
Van Der Schaar et al.
Costanzo et al.
Paul et al.
US 5,987,518 Nov. 16, 1999
US 2005/0175036 Al Aug. 11, 2005
US 2007/0121719 Al May 31, 2007
US 2010/0146576 Al June 10, 2010
(Provisional filed July 15, 2000)
US 7 ,958,532 B2 June 7, 2011
(filed June 18, 2001)
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17, 19, and21-24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Paul in view of Gotwald and
further in view of Van De Schaar.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paul in view of Gotwald and further in view of Van Der
Schaar and further in view of Costanzo.
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Paul in view of Gotwald, and further in
view of Van Der Schaar and further in view ofUmezaki.
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 21, Appellants argue
the claims together. (App. Br. 11). We select independent claim 1 as the
representative claim for the group and will address Appellants' arguments
thereto.
3
Appeal2014-004780
Application 12/036,937
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and adopt
as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-11 ), and (2) the reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-10). We highlight and amplify certain
teachings and suggestions of the references, as well as certain ones of
Appellants' arguments as follows.
With respect to representative independent claim 1, Appellants
contend:
Each of the independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 21 require,
generally, concurrent transmission/reception of a video base
layer and another video layer over two separate and distinct
links, one of which is reception verified, and one of which is
not.
(App. Br. 11) (emphasis added).
Appellants argue "Paul does not teach or suggest concurrently
transmitting the base video layer stream via a reception verified link and
transmitting the at least one other video layer stream via a non-reception
verified link." (App. Br. 12)(emphasis deleted).
Appellants further contend:
Even if it is assumed that base video layers are high priority
and other video layers are low priority, Gotwald does not teach or
suggest that that high priority messages (e.g. base video layers)
are sent over a TCP link while low priority messages (e.g. other
video layers) are sent over a UDP link, as recited generally by the
independent claims.
(App. Br. 13). We note that Appellants' argument is not commensurate in
scope with the express language of independent claim I and with respect to the
prior art as applied by the Examiner. We further note that Appellants have
4
Appeal2014-004780
Application 12/036,937
not identified any express definition of the claim terms "reception verified
communication link" and "non-reception verified communication link" with
which to interpret the claimed invention. Consequently, the Examiner relies
upon the broadest reasonable interpretation of the labels applied to the two
communication channels. The Examiner interprets that the high priority link
and the low priority link for the base layer frame and the enhancement layer
frame of the Paul reference as the "reception verified communication link"
and "non-reception verified communication link. (Ans. 3). Additionally,
the Examiner identifies the Gotwald reference to further teaches and
suggests the use of "the reception (TCP) and non-reception (UDP) verified
links for transmission of data (i.e., reception verified link is interpreted as
any link that transmit TCP and non-reception verified link is read on any
link that transmit UDP)." (Ans. 3--4).
Appellants further contend that the Gotwald and Paul references do
not teach or suggest of the claimed "concurrently" transmitting. (App. Br.
12-14). But, the Examiner maintains:
Gotwald is not relied up for teaching concurrent transmission of
the base layer and other layer streams. Paul and Gotwald teach
transmission of base and enhancement layers over reception and
non-reception verified links as discussed above. Van [D]e
Shaar is relied upon for teaching concurrent transmission of
base and enhancement layers.
(Ans. 8). We agree with the Examiner that Appellants are arguing the
claimed invention in a piecemeal fashion and not arguing the prior art as
applied by the Examiner in the combination. (Ans. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10).
Appellants generally respond to the Examiner's arguments by
repeating the arguments advanced in the Appeal Brief and that Appellants'
response is in response to the Examiner's piecemeal rejections. (Reply Br.
5
Appeal2014-004780
Application 12/036,937
5-7). Consequently, we find Appellants' argument to be unpersuasive of
error in the Examiner's factual findings and conclusion of obviousness of
representative independent claim 1.
With respect to dependent 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 19, and 22-24,
Appellants rely upon the arguments against with respect to independent claims
1, 8, 15, and 21. (App. Br. 16). Because we find Appellants' argument to be
unpersuasive, we group claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 19, and 22-24 as
falling with their respective parent claim.
With respect to dependent claims 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 18, 20, and 25,
Appellants rely upon the arguments advanced with respect to the independent
claims and contend that the additional references do not remedy the deficiency
in the base combination. (App. Br. 16). Because we find Appellants' argument
to be unpersuasive, we group claims 4, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 18, 20, and 25 as falling
with their respective parent claim.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting representative claim 1 based
upon obviousness.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims
1-25.
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
6