NXP B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2020

2019004607 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/610,060 05/31/2017 Sebastian Bohn 82015545US01 4197
65913 7590 12/02/2020
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXP B.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
EXAMINER
SHIBRU, HELEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2020 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SEBASTIAN BOHN
____________

Appeal 2019-004607
Application 15/610,060
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–14, which constitute all of the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as NXP B.V.
Appeal Br. 6.
Appeal 2019-004607
Application 15/610,060

3
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is generally directed to “a
method for time stretching an audio or video (AV) stream,” and more
particularly to “modifying playback rate of the received AV stream to fit
entire playback within the time interval.” Spec. ¶ 5.2
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A device, comprising:
a plurality of ports to receive a plurality of audio or video
(AV) streams;
an AV content control unit configured to modify playback
length of an AV content of at least one of the plurality of AV
streams according to an input time interval;
an AV decoder; and
a memory buffer coupled to the audio decoder and the AV
content control unit, wherein the memory buffer is used by the
AV content control unit to buffer at least one of the plurality of
AV streams.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Choudhury et al. US 2011/0106969 A1 May 5, 2011
(“Choudhury”)
REJECTION
Claims 1–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by
Choudhury. Final Act. 4.

2 We refer to the Specification filed May 31, 2017 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action mailed July 20, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Corrected Appeal Brief filed
Nov. 30, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed Mar. 21, 2019
(“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed May 14, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-004607
Application 15/610,060

4
ANALYSIS
Section 102 Rejection
Claim 1 recites (with emphasis added): “an AV content control unit
configured to modify playback length of an AV content of at least one of the
plurality of AV streams according to an input time interval.”
The Examiner finds that Choudhury’s “estimation of an overall video
clip length based on location based service; rate of speed of the handheld
device and the direction of travel” and “deciding which video segments are
appropriate based on the operating environment” teach modifying playback
length of AV content according to an input time interval, as claimed. Final
Act. 4–5 (citing Choudhury ¶¶ 44, 56). Specifically, the Examiner finds
Choudhury’s estimation of an overall video clip length and download time
for each file segment is related to and depends on the location based service
information, and therefore teaches “changing the length based on location
based service.” Ans. 11. The Examiner further finds Choudhury’s “video
segments that are appropriate are selected based on operating environment
of the handheld device,” and “[s]electively taking out those video segments
from the whole video creates a modified video,” and therefore “the length of
the video is changed/altered from having all to having less.” Id. at 12–13.
Appellant argues Choudhury’s “estimating” playback length does not
teach the claimed “modifying” playback length. Appeal Br. 4; see also
Reply Br. 4. Specifically, Appellant argues that “‘modifying’ is commonly
understood and that is something in the content of the AV content must be
altered,” while “estimation is merely a guess about some property of an
object.” Id.
Appeal 2019-004607
Application 15/610,060

5
Appellant further argues Choudhury’s selecting a file to be
downloaded does not teach the claimed modifying the playback length of the
stream to be downloaded. Id. at 4–5. Specifically, Appellant argues
Choudhury’s selecting an appropriate file segment to download is
“according to network conditions and the characteristics of the device and
not based on ‘. . . according to an input time interval’ as stated plainly in
claims 1 and 12.” Id. at 5 (quoting claims 1 and 12). According to
Appellant, “Choudhury teaches ‘selecting’ a stream of appropriate length
based on some criteria and not ‘modifying’ the playback length.” Reply
Br. 4.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Choudhury recites
“deciding which video segments 212 are appropriate for the next download
after assessing the current wireless network conditions and the operating
environment of the handheld computing device 200.” Choudhury ¶ 44. In
Choudhury, monitoring conditions including “estimation of an overall video
clip length and then estimating each uniform resource locator (‘URL’)
download time for each file segment 212 based on signal-noise-ratio
history/history and location based service.” Id. ¶ 56. In other words,
Choudhury describes selecting video to download based on network
conditions. Choudhury also describes estimating video clip length based on
location information.
However, nothing in the cited sections of Choudhury discloses
modifying video length based on an input time interval or selecting a video
to download based on an input time interval. Estimating video clip length
and download time based on location information, or selecting a video to
download based on network conditions, is insufficient to anticipate the
Appeal 2019-004607
Application 15/610,060

6
claim. Therefore, we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument as the
Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence or provided sufficient
explanation as to how Choudhury discloses “modify[ing] playback length of
an AV content . . . according to an input time interval” as recited in claim 1.
Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments
advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other
arguments.
Accordingly, we are constrained on the record before us to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, along with the rejection of
independent claim 12, which recites limitations commensurate in scope to
the disputed limitation discussed above, and dependent claims 2–11, 13, and
14.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 1–14.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–14 § 102 Choudhury 1–14

REVERSED