Ex Parte Toma et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 27, 2016

11721479 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111721,479 06/12/2007 52123 7590 04/29/2016 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. 1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE RESTON, VA 20191 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Tadamasa Toma 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. P29937 1145 EXAMINER BECK,LERON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2487 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/29/2016 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): gbpatent@gbpatent.com greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) U-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TADAMASA TOMA, TOMOYUKI OKADA, SAM LIU, PHILIP M. WALKER, and PAUL BOERGER Appeal2014-008409 Application 11/721,479 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN A. EV ANS, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of Claims 18, 19, 21-26, 29, 30, 35, and 36, which comprise all pending claims. App. Br. 1; Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. 2 1 The Appeal Brief identifies Hewlett-Packard Development Company L.P. and Panasonic Corporation, as the Real Parties in Interest. App. Br. 3. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 6, 2014, "App. Br."), the Reply Brief (filed July 31, 2014, Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed June Appeal2014-008409 Application 11/721,479 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to a picture coding apparatus. See Abstract. Claims 18, 23, 29, and 35 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 18, which is reproduced below with some formatting added: 18. A picture coding apparatus which generates a coded picture signal by coding each picture in each random access unit which includes one or more pictures, said picture coding apparatus comprising: a coder operable to code, when the random access unit of the coded picture signal is an open type random access unit which is able to be coded by referring to another random access unit, a picture to be coded to generate an independent picture which is positioned, in the random access unit, in a display order before a starting picture that is positioned in a decoding order as a first picture, and which is able to be decoded independently without referring to any other picture; an information generator operable to generate, when the random access unit is the open type random access unit, first supplementary information which indicates a picture type of each of pictures in the random access unit of the coded picture signal, and second supplementary information which indicates a structure of each of the pictures; a generator operable to generate, when the random access unit is the open type random access unit, a stuffing bit so that a total bit number of the first supplementary information, the second supplementary information, and the stuffing bit is integral multiplication of eight bits; and 6, 2014, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed September 5, 2013, "Final Act."), and the Specification (filed June 12, 2007, "Spec.") for their respective details. 2 Appeal2014-008409 Application 11/721,479 a writer operable to write, when the random access unit is the open type random access unit, the first supplementary information and the second supplementary information generated by said information generator and the stuffing bit generated by the generator into the random access unit of the coded picture signal, wherein the first supplementary information is supplementary information indicating a picture type of each of the pictures, in the decoding order of the pictures in one of the random access units, and a picture type of at least one of the pictures is the independent picture, and the second supplementary information is supplementary information for identifying the number of display fields when each of the pictures is displayed, in the decoding order of the pictures in one of the random access units, and the number of display fields varies among pictures in at least one random access unit for which the second supplementary information is written. References and Rejections The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows: Isozaki Kim US 6,282,242 Bl US 2002/0090029 Al US 2002/0196850 Al US 2005/0010632 Al US 7,664,177 B2 Aug.28,2001 July 11, 2002 Dec. 26, 2002 Jan. 13,2005 Feb. 16,2010 Liu Lei Mukerjee Claims 18, 19, 21-26, 29, 30, 35, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over Mukerjee, Kim, Isozaki, Liu, and Lei. Final Act. 2-8. 3 Appeal2014-008409 Application 11/721,479 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 18, 19, 21-26, 29, 30, 35, and 36 in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants' conclusions. CLAIMS 18, 19, 21-26, 29, 30, 35, AND 36: OBVIOUSNESS OVER MUKERJEE, KIM, lSOZAKI, LIU, AND LEI Open type random access unit. Appellants contend that the cited art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the claimed "open type random access unit." App. Br. 15. The Examiner finds "that it is well known that a random access unit is nothing more than computer storage that allows for the access of information at random." Ans. 11. The Examiner finds Mukerjee discloses that computer storage can be accessed using a random number generator. The Examiner finds Mukerjee, thus discloses "a random access unit." Id.; Ans. 11. Claim 18 recites "when the random access unit of the coded picture signal is an open type random access unit." The claimed "random access unit" (RAU) refers to data, i.e., a portion of a picture signal. Spec., 5, 11. 9- 13. A portion of picture signal data is not the same as, nor is it taught by, a unit of computer storage. Figure 1 depicts a structure of an MPEG-2 (Moving Picture Experts Group) data stream comprising a plurality of Group of Pictures (GOP). Spec., 2, 11. 8-10. Appellants disclose that a data stream according to the VC-1 standard3 has the same structure as the MPEG-2 standard where a 3 Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE), Proposed SMPTE Standard 5 for Television: VC-1 Compressed Video Bitstream 4 Appeal2014-008409 Application 11/721,479 random access point is referred to as an "entry point." Spec., 5, 11. 6-9. Appellants disclose that according to the VC-1 standard, data from a first entry point to the subsequent entry point is a random access unit (RAU) and is equivalent to one GOP according to the MPEG-2 standard. Id., 11. 9-11. The Examiner's finding that Mukerjee teaches "random access computer storage" is completely unrelated to the claimed "random access unit of the coded picture signal." The Examiner has made no attempt to ground the claim construction in the Specification. The words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history. See Phillips v. A WH Corp., 415 F .3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane). The "PTO's 'broadest' interpretation must be reasonable, and must be in conformity with the invention as described in the specification." In re Vaidyanathan, 381 F. Appx. 985, (Fed. Cir. 2010). The examiner erred by resorting to extrinsic evidence that was inconsistent with the more reliable intrinsic evidence. Bell Atl. Network Servs. v. Covad Commc 'ns Grp., 262 F.3d 1258, 1269 (Fed. Cir.2001) ("[E]xtrinsic evidence may be used only to assist in the proper understanding of the disputed limitation; it may not be used to vary, contradict, expand, or limit the claim language from how it is defined, even by implication, in the specification or file history."). Format and Decoding Process, Final Committee Draft 1 Revision 6, 2005.7 .13). Spec., p.3, 11. 3---6. 5 Appeal2014-008409 Application 11/721,479 Appellants argue independent Claims 18, 29, and 35 as a group. App. Br. 21. Appellants argue Claims 19, 21-26, 30, and 36 are allowable in view of their dependence from one of independent Claims 18, 29, and 35. Id. 22. We decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 18, 19, 21-26, 29, 30, 35, and 36. DECISION The rejection of Claims 18, 19, 21-26, 29, 30, 35, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 is REVERSED. REVERSED 6