Ex Parte SUZUKIDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 18, 201914293553 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/293,553 06/02/2014 154930 7590 XSENSUS LLP 200 Daingerfield Road Suite 201 Alexandria, VA 22314 06/20/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Teruhiko SUZUKI 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. 10845US03CON 1730 EXAMINER BAILEY, FREDERICK D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/20/2019 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): anaquadocketing@Xsensus.com Arlene.Hudgens@Xsensus.com Faith.Baggett@xsensus.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte TERUHIKO SUZUKI 1 Appeal 2018-001160 Application 14/293,553 Technology Center 2400 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR. and JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant is appealing the final rejection of claims 2-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. Introduction The invention is directed to: 1 Appellant identifies Gemalto SA as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 3. 2 An Oral Hearing was held June 6, 2019. Appeal 2018-001160 Application 14/293,553 [ A ]n encoding device and a method, a decoding device and a method, an editing device and a method, a storage medium, and a program which are preferably used for transmitting/receiving image information (bitstreams ), compressed by motion compensation and orthogonal transformation, such as a discrete cosine transform or Karhunen- Loeve transform, through a network medium, such as satellite broadcast, cable television broadcast, or the Internet, or are preferably used for processing image information on a storage medium, such as an optical disk, a magnetic disk, or a flash memory. Specification 1. Illustrative Claim 2. An encoding device, comprising: circuitry configured to: generate buffer characteristics information, which includes a plurality of combinations of buffer size information and bit rate information as criteria for determining whether a bitstream is decodable using a decoder buffer size and a bit rate, the buffer size information indicating a required buffer size of a buffer that stores the bitstream during decoding of the bitstream and the bit rate information indicating an input bit rate of the buffer; and encode an input signal to generate the bit stream including the generated buff er characteristics information. Rejections on Appeal Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 15 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Van den Branden (U.S. Patent 6,011,868; issued January 4, 2000). Final Action 2--4. 2 Appeal 2018-001160 Application 14/293,553 Claims 6, 11 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Van den Branden and Koda (U.S. Patent 6,408,030 Bl; issued June 18, 2002). Final Action 5-6. Claims 3, 8 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Van den Branden and Li (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0118102 Al; published June 26, 2003). Final Action 6. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Briefs (filed April 3, 2017, May 19, 2017 and July 11, 2017), the Reply Brief (filed November 13, 2017), the Final Action (mailed November 23, 2016) and the Answer (mailed September 29, 2017), for the respective details. 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) and I03(a) rejection Appellant contends, "[a]t no point does van den Branden teach or suggest encoding an input signal to generate the bit stream including the generated buffer characteristics information, which is generated by the encoder and includes a plurality of combinations of buffer size information and bit rate information, as required by claim 2." Appeal Brief 4. The Examiner finds, "giving the claims a broadest reasonable interpretation" that Van den Branden teaches: [A] bitstream quality analyzer analyzes information provided by a video decoder and calculates various metrics allowing the user to determine the quality of the encoding process where based on decoded parameters obtained from decoding the elementary video bitstream to the IVLC [Inverse Variable Length Coding] level ( where since the information is produced from the bitstream it is inherent that it was produced at the encoder). 3 Appeal 2018-001160 Application 14/293,553 Answer 2, (citing Van den Branden Figures 1, 2, 3, 5, 6; column 1, lines 42- 65; column 3, line 60-column 4, line 3; column 8, lines 53-62 and column 9, lines 6-8, 24--33.). Van den Branden discloses in regard to Figure 5: The demultiplexer 180 separates the lv1PEG bitstream mw various elementary bitstreams (audio1 video, and/or multiple audio or multiple video elementary bitstreams) and provides the video elementary bitstream that is to be monitored to the bitstream quality analyzer 190. The bitstream gualitv analyzer J.2f!J?.~I~.t~ .. Im~i...d:~f.mi.~~..1Jw . .:v..i.ct~.QJ~L~n1~nt.0:r.Y..h11.§!ItmnJQ __ t~1rn,f1 various parameters and perfonn varying levels of quality analysis on that bitstream. Information concerning the monitored Yv1P EG video elementary bitstream, as we11 as varying fovels of quality analysis1 are displayed to a user via a Graphical 1-Iser Interface ((TUI) 200. In addition, through the GUI 200~ the user is able to select the level of monitoring and quality analysis to control the bitstream (iualitv analyzer 190. 1 ,/ • Van den Branden, column 5, lines 41-55 (emphasis added'). Appellant contends, "while the existence of an encoder may be inherent to create the bitstream, what is not inherent is for the encoder to include, in the encoded bitstream, buffer characteristics information for the sequence of the bitstream, which includes a plurality of combinations of buffer size information and bit rate information." Reply Brief 2. Appellant further contends Van den Branden "simply describes metrics such as a 'metric of buffer fullness' or 'an actual bit rate based on the amount of compressed video data received by the decoder' that are calculated after decoding the video signal and may be presented in a GUI so that a user can visually assess the quality of the bitstream" and, therefore, "[ s ]ince these parameters are dependent on a result of encoding the signal, van den 4 Appeal 2018-001160 Application 14/293,553 Branden fails to teach or suggest that any of these parameters are included in an encoded bitstream that is decoded by the decoder." Reply Brief 2. We do not agree with the Examiner's findings and we find Appellant's arguments persuasive. Van den Branden does not teach an encoded bitstream containing buffer characteristics information for the sequence of the bitstream including a plurality of combinations of buffer size information and bit rate information as required by independent claims 2, 7 and 12. See Reply Brief 2. Instead, Van de Branden teaches an encoder that revises its characteristics information according to specification provided by a decoder to process an encoded data stream. See Reply Brief 3. We reverse the anticipation rejection of independent claims 2, 7 and 12, as well as, dependent claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 14 and 15. Further, we do not find that a prima facie case of obviousness was properly established by the Examiner to address the noted deficiency of Van den Branden and accordingly, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 15. See Final Action 3-4 ("where an encoder is inherent and where determining whether the bitstream is decodable from the estimated the size of the decoder buffer, and the encoder estimated the bit rate as disclosed in Van den Branden would have been understood to one of ordinary skill in the art from these teachings in van de Branden."). 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections We find that neither Koda nor Li cures the noted deficiencies of Van den Branden because none of the cited references, either alone or in combination, discloses encoded bitstream containing buffer characteristics information for the sequence of the bitstream including a plurality of combinations of buffer size information and bit rate information as required 5 Appeal 2018-001160 Application 14/293,553 by independent claims 2, 7 and 12. See Final Action 5---6. Subsequently, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 3, 6, 8, 11, 13 and 16. DECISION The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 103(a) rejections of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 15 are reversed. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 3, 6, 8, 11, 13 and 16 are reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation