Disney Enterprises, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 28, 20202019000775 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/508,214 10/07/2014 Samuel Joseph REISNER 40189/05401(13- DIS-129-ME 2675 94470 7590 08/28/2020 DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. c/o Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP 150 Broadway Suite 702 New York, NY 10038 EXAMINER DANG, PHILIP ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2488 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/28/2020 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): fhall@fkmiplaw.com mmarcin@fkmiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SAMUEL JOSEPH REISNER and MICHAEL KIDD Appeal 2019-000775 Application 14/508,214 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–13, and 15–23.1 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 Disney Enterprises, Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-000775 Application 14/508,214 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, the invention relates to: A method including encoding a video program into a plurality of video streams, each of the plurality of video streams being encoded at a corresponding one of a plurality of bitrates; providing, to a plurality of viewing clients, an option to select one of the plurality of video streams; determining a streaming capacity of each of the viewing clients; and determining an improved plurality of bitrates based on streaming capacities of the plurality of viewing clients. Spec., Abstr. Claim 12, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: encoding a video program into a first plurality of video streams, each of the first plurality of video streams being encoded at a corresponding one of a first plurality of bitrates; generating a first alternate video stream at a first alternate bitrate that is not one of the first plurality of bitrates at which the first plurality of video streams are encoded, wherein the first alternate video stream at the first alternate bitrate is generated based on one of the first plurality of video streams padded with additional data after the one of the first plurality of video streams has been encoded; providing, to a plurality of viewing clients, an option to select one of the first plurality of video streams or the first alternate video stream at the first alternate bitrate; receiving, by an optimization logic, a streaming capacity of each of the plurality of viewing clients, wherein the streaming capacity of each of the plurality of viewing clients is based on a 2 Appellant argues independent claims 1, 8, 19, 27, 33, 34, and 35 together as a group. See Appeal Br. 19–35. We select claim 1 as representative of these claims, pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2019-000775 Application 14/508,214 3 selection of one of the first plurality of video streams or the first alternate video stream at the first alternate bitrate; and determining, by the optimization logic, a second plurality of bitrates based on at least one selection of the first alternate stream at the first alternate bitrate by the plurality of viewing clients. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Name Reference Date Shimizu US 2006/0168104 A1 July 27, 2006 Nilsson US 7,428,244 B2 Sept. 23, 2008 Ganesan US 2011/0122939 A1 May 26, 2011 Biderman US 8,099,473 B2 Jan. 17, 2012 Soroushian US 8,818,171 B2 Aug. 26, 2014 REJECTIONS3 1. Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–13, 15, 16, and 18–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Soroushian, Biderman, Nilsson, and Ganesan. Final Act. 3–55. 2. Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Soroushian, Biderman, Nilsson, Ganesan, and Shimizu. Final Act. 55–57. OPINION Claim 1 recites “determining, by the optimization logic, a second plurality of bitrates based on at least one selection of the first alternate stream at the first alternate bitrate by the plurality of viewing clients.” The 3 The Examiner withdrew the 35 U.S.C. § 101 patent eligibility rejection of claims 1–3, 5–13 and 15–22. See Ans. 2, 3. Appeal 2019-000775 Application 14/508,214 4 Examiner relies on several references as teaching this limitation. For example, the Examiner cites Nilsson’s control unit that “periodically makes a decision as to any changes to the bit rates to be employed by each layer and send control signals to the transcoder control inputs to adjust, if necessary, the bit rate in one or more layers.” Final Act. 10 (emphasis omitted) (citing Nilsson, 3:33–39). The Examiner also relies on Biderman’s disclosure of a client selecting a first stream from a variant playlist and then selecting an alternative media playlist that is streamed at a higher bitrate than the first bitrate if the alternative is better. Ans. 57 (citing Biderman, Fig. 9A). The Examiner further relies on Soroushian’s adaptive bitrate streaming system, which according to the Examiner, allows the viewing client to select an initial stream at a first bitrate, and when streaming conditions change or deteriorate, switches to a lower bitrate which fits better with the new streaming conditions. Ans. 59 (citing Soroushian 4:23–26, 6:21–28, 8:34–47, Fig. 5). Finally, the Examiner relies on Ganesan as disclosing that when a user wishes to skip certain sections of media content, for example, advertisements, the media content will be encoded with different bitrates. Ans. 55 (citing Ganesan ¶ 50). Appellant contends that none of the aforementioned references teach “determining . . . a second plurality of bitrates based on at least one selection of the first alternate stream at the first alternate bitrate by the plurality of viewing clients.” Essentially, Appellant argues that the selection of an alternative bitrate identified by the Examiner in each of these references does not provide a basis for a determination of a second plurality of bitrates. Appellant argues that the bitrates are determined prior to the selection of an alternative bitrate for both Ganesan and Biderman. See Reply Br. 4, 5 Appeal 2019-000775 Application 14/508,214 5 (arguing, that in Ganesan, the bitrates are determined prior to the selection of a segment of media and, that in Biderman, the bitrates for the playlists are already determined before they are provided.) Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible Examiner error. Nilsson, for example, teaches that a decision to change bitrates is based on “current bit-rate capacity available for each of the terminals” rather than being based on the selection of an alternative bitrate by the terminal or user. Nilsson 3:35–36. Soroushian teaches an adaptive bitrate streaming system where a playback device is able to stream video at the highest quality that can be supported by the device’s network connection while also being able to screen video at a lower maximum bitrate if streaming conditions deteriorate. Soroushian 6:21–28. However, Soroushian does not teach that a second plurality of bitrates are determined based on a selection of an alternative bitrate by the playback device. Similarly, we do not find that Biderman’s client device that selects an alternative media playlist from the variant playlist that is streamed at a higher bitrate teaches a second plurality of bitrates that are determined based on the selection of the alternative media playlist streamed at the higher bitrate. Finally, Ganesan discloses that, if a user desires to skip to a certain point in the media content, the device may immediately retrieve the appropriate media content segments at the lowest bitrate to enable near instant playback of the media content. Ganesan ¶ 50. Once the switch is made to the lowest bitrate, however, Ganesan does not disclose that a second plurality of bitrates is determined based on this switch to the lowest bitrate. Ganesan also discloses that media segments are encoded at a first Appeal 2019-000775 Application 14/508,214 6 bitrate and at a second bitrate, and that the bitrate at which the media is streamed (either the first or the second bitrate) is determined by the network bandwidth available to the device. See Ans. 55-56 (citing Ganesan, Claim 1). Here, we agree with Appellant that both of these first and second bitrates are pre-determined and the selection of which to use is determined by bandwidth rather than by a selection of an alternate bitrate by the user. The Examiner rejects each of independent claims 1, 11, and 22 based on the same findings which we find are not supported by the cited art for the reasons summarized above. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 22 and of each of the remaining dependent claims. See Final Act. 4–10, 25–32, 47–54. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5, 6, 8–13, 15, 16, 18–23 103 Soroushian, Biderman, Nilsson, Ganesan 1–3, 5, 6, 8–13, 15, 16, 18–23 7, 17 103 Soroushian, Biderman, Nilsson, Ganesan, Shimizu 7, 17 Overall Outcome 1–3, 5–13, 15–23 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation