Ex Parte Tourapis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2012

11631449 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte ALEXANDROS MICHAEL TOURAPIS
and JILL MACDONALD BOYCE
_____________

Appeal 2010-006744
Application 11/631,449
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and LARRY J.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

Per Curiam

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-006744
Application 11/631,449

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 22.

We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a system for enabling a channel change in
a digital subscriber line system where there are two video streams for
transmission. See abstract of Appellants’ invention. Claim 1 is
representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A channel change processing unit for enabling a channel
change comprising a selector for receiving at least two video
streams corresponding to a same program and for selecting
anyone of the at least two video streams for transmission based
upon a position of intra-coded pictures in the at least two video
streams.

REFERENCES
Gordon US 6,621,870 B1 Sep. 16, 2003
Barrett US 2004/0034864 A1 Feb/ 19, 2004
Kerofsky US 2005/0229221 A1 Oct. 13, 2005
Green US 7,430,222 B2 Sep. 30, 2008

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 4, 6 through 9, 11
through 14, and 16 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Green. Answer 3-61.

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
December 8, 2009.
Appeal 2010-006744
Application 11/631,449

3

The Examiner has rejected claims 5, 10, 15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Green and Gordon. Answer 7-9.
The Examiner has rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Green and Barrett. Answer 9-10.
The Examiner has rejected claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Green and Kerofsky. Answer 10.

ISSUES
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Appellants argue on pages 11 and 17 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
is in error.2 These arguments present us with the issues:
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Green teaches selecting one
of two video streams?3

2 Throughout this opinion we refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed on
October 2, 2009, and Reply Brief filed on January 14, 2010.
3 We note that Appellants, on pages 11 through 13 of the Reply Brief, assert
that Green does not teach that the selection of the stream is for transmission.
These arguments were presented for the first time in the Reply Brief and
have not been considered as they are deemed waived. See Ex parte Borden,
93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473-74 (BPAI 2010) (“informative”) (absent a showing
of good cause, the Board is not required to address argument in Reply Brief
that could have been presented in the principal Brief). Further, the claims
merely recite selecting one video stream for transmission and do not identify
what form the transmission takes place or to where the transmission is
destined; however, Appellants’ arguments appear to be reading additional
limitations into the claim. For example, Appellants’ argument, on page 12
of the Reply Brief, that Green’s receipt, decoding and presentation (all of
which involve transmission of a signal to another circuit or component) does
Footnote continued on next page.
Appeal 2010-006744
Application 11/631,449

4

2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Green teaches the selection is
based upon a position of intra-coded pictures in the streams?
On pages 17 through 19 of the Appeal Brief Appellants provide additional
arguments directed to independent claims 6 and 16 which present us with the
issue:
3. Did the Examiner err in finding that Green teaches the two streams
include intra coded pictures that occur at different positions in the
video streams?

Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants present the same arguments with respect to the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as presented with respect to the rejection
of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Thus, with respect to the
Examiner’s rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we are presented with
the same issues as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 11.

ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We disagree with
Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that Green teaches
selecting one of two video streams; that the selection is based upon a

not meet the claim, assumedly because Appellants intend the transmission to
be un-decoded and not presentable.
Appeal 2010-006744
Application 11/631,449

5

position of the intra-coded pictures, and that the two streams include intra-
coded pictures that occur at different positions in the video streams. The
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response, supported by ample
evidence, to each issue raised by Appellants. Answer 11-13. We adopt as
our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief.
With respect to the first issue, Appellants’ arguments focus on Green
disclosing a forced transition from a unicast stream to a multicast stream and
not to selecting a stream as claimed. App. Brief 15-16. The Examiner
provides a detailed response and finds that, regardless of whether the
switchover is forced, a selection of one stream is a necessary step. Answer
12. We concur with the Examiner’s claim interpretation and findings. As
such, Appellants’ arguments directed to the first issue have not persuaded us
of error in the rejection of claims 1 and 11.
With respect to the second issue, Appellants argue that Green does not
teach positioning of the intra-coded pictures is related to determining
whether the multicast or unicast stream is presented. App. Brief 16-17. The
Examiner provides a detailed analysis of how Green teaches the
transmission of any stream begins with a RAP or Intra-coded picture.
Answer 13. We concur with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions with
respect to this issue. Further, we note Green teaches that the splice point
(the point where the transmission is switched from unicast to multicast
position) is performed at a RAP point (intra-coded picture). Green Col. 8, ll.
11-14, ll. 60-61. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments directed to the second
Appeal 2010-006744
Application 11/631,449

6

issue have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1
and 11.
With respect to the third issue, Appellants assert that Green’s two
streams are the same, just out of alignment and do not have different
sequencing as the skilled artisan would understand from the claims. App.
Brief 17-18. The Examiner in response finds that Green in figure 3 depicts
that at the same instance the intra-coded frames are at different positions in
the streams and as such, Green teaches the claims 6 and 16 limitation of the
“inter-coded pictures that occur at different positions.” Answer 14-15. We
concur with this finding by the Examiner. Claims 6 and 16 do not recite that
the streams have different sequencing as argued by Appellants, and we
decline to import such a limitation in to the claim. Further, we note that the
claim, by not identifying what the positions are in reference to (i.e. time,
relative to other frames, relative to sequence of video), is broad enough to
encompass different positions in time as taught by Green. Accordingly,
Appellants’ arguments with respect to the third issue have not persuaded us
of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 16.
As Appellants’ arguments directed to the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection only present us with these three issues and they have not persuaded
us of error in the rejection, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection
of claims 1 through 4, 6 through 9, 11 through 14, and 16 through 19.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
As discussed above, Appellants’ arguments directed to the Examiner’s
rejections based upon 35 U.S.C. § 103 present us with the same issues as
discussed with respect to claims 1 and 11. Accordingly, we sustain the
Appeal 2010-006744
Application 11/631,449

7

Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons discussed
with respect to claims 1 and 11.

DECISION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 4, 6 through
9, 11 through 14, and 16 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and of claims
5, 10, 15, and 20 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 22 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc