Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2020

14458139 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 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.
14/458,139 08/12/2014 Ashley I. Butterworth 082438.031552 7536
139020 7590 10/01/2020
BakerHostetler / Apple Inc.
Washington Square, Suite 1100,
1050 Connecticut Ave, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20036-5304
EXAMINER
WYLLIE, CHRISTOPHER T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2020 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):
eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ASHLEY I. BUTTERWORTH, GIRAULT W. JONES JR., and
MATTHEW X. MORA
Appeal 2019-004386
Application 14/458,139
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JOHN A. EVANS, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 2–14 and 16–29. Claims 1 and 15 have been
cancelled. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004386
Application 14/458,139

2
BACKGROUND
The Claimed Invention
The invention relates to “computerized devices, networks and buses,”
and more particularly, to “efficiently servicing isochronous streams [of
content] associated with a network.” Spec. 1. According to the
Specification, “isochronous transport” refers to processes in which data must
be delivered within particular time constraints, so as to provide “smooth,
uninterrupted content [e.g., a video stream] to the user or consumer.” Id. at
2. The Specification explains that certain standard networks have “loose
time synchronization which can create problems with” correctly transmitting
“packets at designated launch times” and problems with “[o]ut-of-order
packets [being] dropped or delivered too late.” Id. Accordingly, the
invention is intended to “improve . . . delivery of isochronous data content
within existing network infrastructures.” Id.
Claims 28 and 29 are independent. Claim 28 is illustrative of the
invention and the subject matter in dispute, and is reproduced below:
28. A method of managing a plurality of isochronous
processes, the method comprising:
receiving, at a network element, a first isochronous data
stream representing a first set of media content, the first data
stream comprising a plurality of data packets and data
representing presentation times, according to a first time base,
of portions of the first set of media content;
receiving, at the network element, a second isochronous
data stream representing a second set of media content, the
second data stream comprising a plurality of data packets and
data representing presentation times, according to a second time
base differing from the first time base, of portions of the second
set of media content;
Appeal 2019-004386
Application 14/458,139

3
multiplexing the packets of the first and second data
streams to produce a composite data stream, including sorting
the respective data packets of the first and second data streams
based on their respective presentation times and a difference
between the first and second time bases;
calculating launch times for the packets of the composite
data stream based on the sorting the respective data packets of
the first and second data streams; and
transmitting from the network element the data packets
of the composite data stream according to their respective
launch times.
Appeal Br. 16−17 (Claims App.) (emphases added).

References
The references relied upon by the Examiner are:
Name Reference Date
Horvitz et al.
(“Horvitz”)
6,021,403 Feb. 1, 2000
Zhang et al.
(“Zhang”)
US 6,611,624 B1 Aug. 26, 2003
Chen et al. (“Chen”) US 7,725,202 B1 May 25, 2010
Liu et al. (“Liu”) US 2006/0007960 A1 Jan. 12, 2006
Chen et al. (“Chen
’967”)
US 2011/0149967 A1 June 23, 2011

The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 6−8, 12−14, 16, 17, 19−23, 28, and 29 stand rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhang and Chen. Final
Act. 3−7.
Claims 2−4, 10, 25, and 26 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Zhang, Chen, and Chen ’967. Final Act. 7−11.
Appeal 2019-004386
Application 14/458,139

4
Claims 5 and 27 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zhang, Chen, and Horvitz. Final Act. 11−12.
Claim 9 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zhang, Chen, and Liu. Final Act. 13−14.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments presented in this appeal. On the record before us, we cannot
sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding the prior art
teaches or suggests “multiplexing the packets of the first and second data
streams to produce a composite data stream, including sorting the respective
data packets of the first and second data streams based on their respective
presentation times and a difference between the first and second time bases,”
as recited in independent claim 28. Appeal Br. 7−9 (emphases added);
Reply Br. 2−3. Specifically, Appellant argues the Examiner relies on Zhang
as teaching the disputed limitation, but (according to Appellant) Zhang
merely teaches “splicing” a chunk of a video stream into another stream, not
“sorting” individual data packets to produce a composite stream. Reply Br.
2. Further, Appellant argues Zhang does not teach “sorting” based on
“presentation times.” We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
As Appellant contends, the Examiner relies on Zhang as teaching or
suggesting the disputed “multiplexing” and “sorting” limitation. Ans. 3−6;
Appeal 2019-004386
Application 14/458,139

5
see also Final Act. 3−4.2 The Examiner finds Zhang discloses “first [and]
second spliced bit streams,” and “time stamps” which “suggests a display
order is based on [the] time stamps.” Ans. 3−4 (citing Zhang Figs. 4, 11, 15,
18:49−50, 6:32−46). Figure 4 of Zhang is reproduced below.

Figure 4 depicts a first and a second bitstream, and a “spliced bit
stream constructed according to the invention” in Zhang. Zhang 5:20−22.
The “exit point” and “entry point” in Figure 4 show:
[t]he use of reordering and/or re-coding by the present
invention for a few frames or pictures near the splice points, the
exit point and the entry point. In particular, blocks 400 show the
re-encoded areas of the resulting spliced bitstream. In
accordance with the present invention, the frames in the re-
encoded areas are selectively re-encoded depending on which
frames in the first and second bitstreams are affected by the
splice point.

2 The Examiner cites the combination of Chen with Zhang as teaching the
“calculating launch time” and “transmitting” limitations of claim 28, which
are not argued by Appellant. Final Act. 4.
Appeal 2019-004386
Application 14/458,139

6
Id. 4:19−23; see also id. Figs. 5A, 11, 15.
The Examiner does not explain, and we cannot discern on this record,
how the foregoing illustration and disclosure in Zhang teaches or suggests
“sorting . . . respective data packets,” as recited in claim 28. As Appellant
argues, Zhang’s Figure 4 (as well as Figure 7, which depicts a “recoding
unit”) indicates that one stream is simply spliced into the other, based on
“decoding” and then “recoding” the video. Zhang 9:61−10:8. Figure 4, in
contrast to Appellant’s claim 28, illustrates that “a splice point” is
determined, and a stream is inserted.
The Examiner further finds that Zhang discloses a “header within the
bitstream,” and from this disclosure, the Examiner reasons “since there is a
header and data is being transmitted, then it is a data packet.” Ans. 4 (citing
Zhang 14:45−47). Even if this disclosure indicates a data packet, however,
the Examiner has not identified any teaching in Zhang of the claimed
“sorting” of the data packets to produce a composite data stream, as recited
in claim 28.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
28. For the same reasons, we are persuaded of error regarding the same
rejection of independent claim 29, which includes the same disputed
limitation. The remaining claims all depend (directly or indirectly) from
claims 28 and 29, and the additional references cited do not address the
deficiencies regarding claims 28 and 29. We, therefore, do not sustain the
obviousness rejections of claims 2–4 and 16–29.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2–4 and 16–29.
Appeal 2019-004386
Application 14/458,139

7

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
6−8, 12−14,
16, 17,
19−23, 28,
29
103(a) Zhang, Chen 6−8, 12−14,
16, 17,
19−23, 28,
29
2−4, 10, 25,
26
103(a) Zhang, Chen, Chen
’967
2−4, 10, 25,
26
5, 27 103(a) Zhang, Chen,
Horvitz
5, 27
9 103(a) Zhang, Chen, Liu 9
Overall
Outcome
2–4, 16−29

REVERSED