Ex Parte Wirick et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 29, 2019

15044267 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 15/044,267 02/16/2016 21924 7590 ARRIS Enterprises LLC Legal Dept - Docketing 101 Tournament Drive HORSHAM, PA 19044 05/01/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kevin S. Wirick 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. ARR00422 2200 EXAMINER DANG,HUNGQ ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2484 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/01/2019 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): ARRIS.docketing@arris.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KEVIN S. WIRICK and AJAY LUTHRA Appeal2018-006861 Application 15/044,267 1 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON V. MORGAN, DAVID J. CUTITTA II, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-10, 13, and 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. 1 Appellants' Brief ("App. Br.") identifies ARRIS Technology, Inc., as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal2018-006861 Application 15/044,267 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants describe their invention as being related to "managing video storage requirements for a network digital video recorder (DVR)" by "limiting the number [ of] different resolution video streams going to a network DVR storage as well as reducing transcoding processing needs when alternate resolution formats of video content are needed [other] than those stored in the DVR." Spec. ,r 1. The Specification explains the purported benefits of the claimed embodiments as "reduc[ing] the cost of network DVR storage by building on a concept of Just-In Time (JIT) transcoding which eliminates storing all formats of content in a DVR." Spec. ,r 3. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for performing video encoding for storage compnsmg: providing super-encoding to compute an efficient compressed stream for storage for a single layer first resolution video; and computing metadata that reduces the computational load for subsequent Just In Time (JIT) transcoding the stored first resolution video as part of the super-encoding to a single layer second resolution video and storing the metadata with the compressed stream, wherein the metadata targets the largest computational load of transcoding. App. Br. 8 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Wee US 2003/0070081 Al Apr. 10, 2003 2 Appeal2018-006861 Application 15/044,267 Naletov US 2014/0269927 Al Sept. 18, 2014 REJECTIONS Claims 1-3, 6-8, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(a)(l) as being anticipated by Wee. Final Act. 3--4. Claims 4, 5, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Wee and Naletov. Final Act. 4--5. ISSUE Has the Examiner erred in finding Wee discloses "providing super- encoding to compute an efficient compressed stream for storage for a single layer first resolution video," as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Claim Interpretation Resolution of this appeal turns on an issue of claim interpretation. Specifically, the scope of "single layer first resolution video" and "single layer second resolution video" as recited in claim 1. The Examiner concludes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of "single layer [first/second] resolution video" is "a video not multiplexed or layered with other video data and capable of providing the first/second resolution." Ans. 7. Appellants' position, while not styled as a claim construction argument per se, makes clear that they interpret the phrase to mean the encoded video data has only one layer, and does not include any additional layer. App. Br. 5 ("Claim 1 uses a single layer scheme."); see also id. ( contrasting claimed "single layer" with scalable video "using a base layer and an enhancement layer"). 3 Appeal2018-006861 Application 15/044,267 "[T]he PTO gives a disputed claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation during patent prosecution." In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). One dictionary defines "single" as meaning "only one, not one of several" or "consisting of one part." Single, New Oxford American Dictionary, 3d Ed. (2010). Based on this dictionary definition, we conclude that the phrase "single layer" means "only one layer," and that the larger phrase "single layer first resolution video" means "video of a first resolution that is stored as only one layer." Similarly, the phrase "single layer second resolution video" means "video of a second resolution that is stored as only one layer." This interpretation is consistent with the example in the Specification, which states that "[t]he super-encoder 100 performs encoding in a single high resolution format, such as HEVC." Spec. ,r 11. The Examiner's interpretation of the phrase is too broad because it only requires that a video stream be "not multiplexed." However, a video that is not multiplexed can also include multiple stored layers, which is inconsistent with the plain meaning of "single" as well as the example in the Specification. Anticipation Anticipation is a test of strict identity. Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top- U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2002). That is, to meet the strict identity test for anticipation, all elements must be disclosed in exactly the same way as they are arranged or combined in the claim. Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 4 Appeal2018-006861 Application 15/044,267 In rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Wee, the Examiner finds that Wee discloses "providing super-encoding to compute an efficient compressed stream for storage for a single layer first resolution video," because it discloses at Figure 9 that only a single stream enters the encoding system 700. Ans. 5. The Examiner also finds that Wee discloses a single layer video stream because "the stream is encoded so that, when transcoded, depending on the target resolution, data packets are either eliminated, truncated, or passed through." Final Act. 2 ( citing Wee Fig. 19 and ,r 94 ). Appellants argue Wee discloses only the use of scalable video encoding, which necessarily includes multiple layers because "data is coded using a base layer and an enhancement layer, with data from the base layer used to control the enhancement layer, and the enhancement layer providing a single resolution output." App. Br. 5. Appellants assert that the cited portions of Wee "disclose[] scalable video encoding that is stored for later transcoding, meaning multiple layers are stored, and no separate single layer is stored as i[ s] claimed in claim 1." Id. Appellants further argue that Wee makes clear that it does not use single layer video because it repeatedly states that the invention is for scalable encoding. App. Br. 6 ( citing Wee ,r,r 128, 133). Applying our construction of "single layer first resolution video," we agree with Appellants. Wee discloses "the present invention is directed towards any data which can be scalably encoded and, specifically, any data that combines scalable encoding with progressive encryption." Wee ,r 58. Wee makes clear that scalable encoding results in multiple layer video. See, e.g., Wee ,r 58 ("[S]calably coded data are often thought of as an embedded bitstream. The first portion of the bitstream can be used to decode a baseline-quality 5 Appeal2018-006861 Application 15/044,267 reconstruction of the original data, without requiring any information from the remainder of the bitstream, and progressively larger portions of the bitstream can be used to decode improved reconstructions of the original data."). We agree with Appellants, that this description, along with Wee' s repeated references to scalable data streaming, demonstrates that Wee's stored video is encoded and stored in a multi-layer, scalable format. Our interpretation of "single layer" requires that there be "only one layer." Thus, because Wee' s video data is not stored in a single layer format, the disclosure of Wee is not exactly the same as the invention recited in Appellants' claims, and cannot satisfy the "strict identity" requirement for finding anticipation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of claim 6 which recites the similar limitation, nor of the remaining dependent claims. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-10, 13, and 14. REVERSED 6