Comcast Cable Communications, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 13, 2020

2019002719 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 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.
14/328,334 07/10/2014 Daniel Freiman 26141.0112U2 9219
16000 7590 05/13/2020
Comcast
c/o Ballard Spahr LLP
999 Peachtree Street, Suite 1000
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
EL-BKAILY, AHMAD M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/13/2020 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):
USpatentmail@ballardspahr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DANIEL FREIMAN, MAURICE GASTON, and
FILIPE ARAUJO
____________________

Appeal 2019-002719
Application 14/328,334
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOYCE CRAIG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-002719
Application 14/328,334
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1–13 and 16–22. Claims 14 and 15 have been canceled (see Appeal Br. 14).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

DISCLOSED AND CLAIMED INVENTION
According to Appellant:
Devices with different processing power and network
bandwidth often request the same content. The processing power
and network bandwidth dedicated to particular content can
fluctuate over time for a given device. Thus, there is a need for
more sophisticated methods and systems for providing
customized content based on processing power, network
bandwidth, and other factors.

Spec. ¶ 2.
The disclosed invention, entitled “Adaptive Content Delivery” (Title),
relates to “methods and systems for managing and providing content” (Spec.
¶ 3), and more particularly to a method for controlling content delivery
based on the length of time it takes to process and deliver content, or
portions of content (see Spec. ¶¶ 3–5; claims 1, 8), or power usage
information (see Spec. ¶¶ 6–8; claim 13). Independent claims 1, 8, and 13
are all method claims. Claims 1 and 8 each recite commensurate limitations
regarding determining a timing attribute from a document object model
which is then used to determine a delivery information attribute (see claims

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. “The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the
inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as
provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
(Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2019-002719
Application 14/328,334
3
1, 8). Claim 13 recites similar subject matter, and determines power
information, instead of timing attribute/information, from the document
object model (see claim 13). Claim 1, reproduced below with bracketed
lettering and emphases added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving at least a portion of a content page via an
application that renders at least the portion of the content
page, wherein the application generates a document object
model representing the content page and stores timing
information associated with the content page in the
document object model;
[A] determining, from the document object model, a timing
attribute associated with the at least a portion of the
content page;
[B] determining a delivery information attribute based on the
timing attribute, wherein the delivery information attribute
comprises at least one of a time duration to process the at
least a portion of the content page or a time duration to
receive the at least a portion of the content page; and
receiving an update to the content page based on comparing
comparing the delivery information attribute to a threshold.
Appeal Br. 12, Claims Appendix (bracketed lettering and emphases added).

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
(1) Claims 1–6, 8–10, 12, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chou et al. (US 2006/0143678 A1;
published June 29, 2006) (hereinafter, “Chou”) and Prager et al. (US
2011/0145246 A1; published June 16, 2011) (hereinafter, “Prager”). Final
Act. 2–9.
(2) Claims 7, 13, 16–18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal 2019-002719
Application 14/328,334
4
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chou, Prager, and Koul et al. (US
2009/0210654 A1; published Aug. 20, 2009) (hereinafter, “Koul”). Final
Act. 9–13.
(3) Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chou, Prager, and Stokking et al. (US 2015/0052571 A1;
published Feb. 19, 2015) (hereinafter, “Stokking”). Final Act. 13–14.
(4) Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chou, Prager, Koul, and Kiley et al. (US 2008/0189360
A1; published Aug. 7, 2008) (hereinafter, “Kiley”). Final Act. 14–15.

ISSUE
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 5–
11) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2–9),2 the following principal issue is
presented on appeal:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1–13 and 16–22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the base combination of Chou
and Prager?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection (Final Act. 2–15) in light
of Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 5–11; Reply Br. 2–9) that the

2 Appellant argues claims 1–6, 8–10, 12, 21, and 22 on the same basis as
claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 5–9; Reply Br. 3–8). As to remaining claims 7, 11,
13, and 16–20, Appellant relies on the arguments presented as to claim 1,
adding that the additionally applied references fail to cure the deficiencies of
the base combination of Chou and Prager (see Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Br.
8–9). Based on Appellant’s arguments, we select claim 1 as representative
of claims 1–6, 8–10, 12, 21, and 22, and we decide the outcome of the
rejections of the remaining claims on the same basis as provided for claim 1.
Appeal 2019-002719
Application 14/328,334
5
Examiner has erred, as well as the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 3–5). Appellant’s arguments are not
persuasive of error. With regard to representative claim 1, we agree with
and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts and conclusions as set
forth in the Final Rejection (Final Act. 2–4) and Answer (Ans. 3–5). We
provide the following explanation for emphasis only.
Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the base combination of
Chou and Prager, because Prager (see ¶¶ 13, 27) teaches or suggests
limitation A and Chou (see ¶¶ 27, 115) teaches or suggests limitation B,
recited in claim 1. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s determination that
the combination of Chou and Prager teaches or suggests the subject matter
of claim 1, including limitations A and B.
With regard to the motivation to combine Chou and Prager, we agree
with the Examiner’s rationale for making the combination set forth at page 4
of the Final Rejection:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art,
having the teachings of Chou and Prager before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of
dynamic streaming quality as taught by Chou with the timing
attribute DOM storage system as taught by Prager so when a
document with many content portions is received, timing
information can be accessed for each content portion without
needing to request any additional documents.

Final Act. 4 (emphasis omitted); and at page 5 of the Answer (explaining the
motivation for staggering content delivery over time):
In this case, the transfer of a file over a network is split into
smaller portions and, using timing attributes, stagger the delivery
of content portions in order so as not to overwhelm the network
connection of the client device while delivering said content
Appeal 2019-002719
Application 14/328,334
6

Ans. 5. We also agree with the Examiner that:
obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the
teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where
there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found
either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally
available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837
F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958
F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR
International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d
1385 (2007).

Ans. 5. Further, we agree with the Examiner that (i) Prager is in the same
field of endeavor as the subject matter of claim 1 (see Final Act. 3); and (ii)
“Chou is ‘reasonably pertinent’ to the problem described by the Appellant as
it relates to the display of content to a user over the internet, that content
being video” (Ans. 3). In particular, we agree with the Examiner that “the
problem itself (i.e., transfer of files over the internet) and ‘how the problem
is solved’ (i.e., a timing attribute to stagger transfer of content objects) is the
same in both inventions and satisfies the ‘reasonably pertinent’ standard
based on how the problem[s] are solved. In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 98
USPQ2d 1991 (Fed. Cir. 2011)” (Ans. 4). Finally, we agree with the
Examiner’s determination (see Ans. 5) that both Chou and Appellant’s
disclosed inventions pertain to streaming audio/video.
In view of the foregoing, Appellant has not overcome the Examiner’s
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to independent claim 1. We are
not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of (i) independent claim 1, as well as claims
2–6, 8–10, 12, 21, and 22 grouped therewith; and (ii) the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 7, 11, 13, and 16–20 argued for similar reasons.
Appeal 2019-002719
Application 14/328,334
7

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
References Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8–10,
12, 21, 22
103 Chou, Prager 1–6, 8–10,
12, 21, 22

7, 13, 16–
18, 20
103 Chou, Prager,
Koul
7, 13, 16–18,
20

11 103 Chou, Prager,
Stokking
11
19 103 Chou, Prager,
Koul, Kiley
19
Overall
Outcome
1–13, 16–22

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