QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 28, 2020

2019003435 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 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. 15/660,264 07/26/2017 Fang Shi QLXX.P0249USD1/1000344317 1074 15757 7590 10/28/2020 Qualcomm /Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP 2200 Ross Avenue Suite 3600 Dallas, TX 75201-7932 EXAMINER LEE, Y YOUNG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2419 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/28/2020 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): doipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte FANG SHI, SEYFULLAH HALIT OGUZ, SUMEET SINGH SETHI, and VIJAYALAKSHMI R. RAVEENDRAN1 ________________ Appeal 2019-003435 Application 15/660,264 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 2–21, which constitute all of the pending claims. Appeal Br. 6. These claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Apostolopoulos (US 2002/0116715 A1; published Aug. 22, 2002. Final Action mailed Aug. 9, 2018 (“Final Act.”), 2–3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies QUALCOMM Incorporated as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed December 21, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), 2. Appeal 2019-003435 Application 15/660,264 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant describes the present invention as follows: A method and apparatus of processing multimedia data comprising a first section received in error are disclosed. The method comprises obtaining error distribution information corresponding to the first section. The method further comprises applying one of a plurality of error recovery schemes to the first section of the multimedia data based on the error distribution information. Abstract. Independent claim 2, reproduced below, illustrates the subject matter of the appealed claims: 2. A method of processing multimedia data comprising a first section received in error, the method comprising: obtaining error distribution information corresponding to the first section; selecting one of a plurality of error recovery schemes based on the error distribution information for the first section, wherein the selecting is based at least on whether a channel switch is detected; and processing the first section based on the selected error recovery scheme. DETERMINATIONS AND CONTENTIONS Appellant argues that Apostolopoulos does not disclose all of the limitations of independent claim 2. More specifically, Appellant argues that Apostolopoulos does not teach or suggest the requirement of claim 2 that selecting one of a plurality of error recovery schemes is based on whether a channel switch (event) is detected. Appeal Br. 7; see also Spec. ¶ 50 (describing a channel switch event). Appellant argues, “Apostolopoulos merely discloses[,] ‘a path selector 118 for explicitly sending each packet Appeal 2019-003435 Application 15/660,264 3 stream over a different path through the network 130.’” Id. at 9. On this point, the Final rejection merely cites to Figure 10 of Apostolopoulos for teaching that the recovery-scheme selection is based on whether a channel switch is detected. Final Act. 2. In the Response to Arguments section of the Final Action, the Examiner further reasons, [A]s stated in the last [Office Action], selector 118 merely illustrates the concept of a channel switch. Since the step of selecting of a recovery scheme 950 based on the error distribution information 940 (e.g. Fig. 9) occurs at the decoder 128 (e.g. Fig. 1), one of ordinary skill in the art would have had no difficulty in recognizing that such selecting 128 is based on the channel switch 118. Final Act. 3; see also Examiner’s Answer mailed February 4, 2019 at 3–4 (“Since the error recovery schemes are utilized during video decoding 128, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had no difficulty in recognizing that such scheme is based on the particular channel path selected previously by the path selector 118.”) STANDARD OF REVIEW The Board conducts a limited de novo review of the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). ANALYSIS The Examiner does not explain why selecting an error-recovery scheme inherently would have been based on whether a channel switch is detected, and we do not see why such a detection would have been a necessary precondition. It is possible that the channel switch is detected Appeal 2019-003435 Application 15/660,264 4 initially merely so that the device knows which of multiple packet streams to decode. See Apostolopoulos, FIG. 1. Furthermore, the Examiner does not explain why one of ordinary skill allegedly would have recognized that the decoding-scheme selection is based on whether a channel switch has been detected. See generally Final Act.; Ans. Accordingly, the Examiner does not establish that Apostolopoulos anticipates independent claim 2. We, therefore, reverse the anticipation rejection of independent claim 2. We, likewise, reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 3–21, which either depend from claim 2 or otherwise recite similar claim language. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: REVERSED Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 2–21 102(b) Apostolopoulos 2–21