Ex Parte Asarikuniyil et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2016

12879194 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/879, 194 09/10/2010
25537 7590 05/27/2016
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Binny Asarikuniyil
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
20100424 6480
EXAMINER
TANG, KAREN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2016 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte BINNY ASARIKUNIYIL and VENKATA S. ADIMATYAM_
Appeal2015-001168
Application 12/879,194
Technology Center 2400
Before CATHERINE SHIANG, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and SCOTT B.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-11, 13-18 and 21-23, which are all the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to recording variable-quality content
stream. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
Appeal2015-001168
Application 12/879,194
1. A device comprising:
a network interface to:
receive data over a network, and
send data over the network; and
a processor to:
begin recording content during a first download of the content
from a remote device,
receive, from the remote device, a first portion of the content at
a first quality via the network interface during the first download,
record the first portion of the content at the first quality as part
of the recording,
obtain bandwidth information in response to receiving the first
portion of the content,
send the bandwidth information to the remote device via the
network interface in response to obtaining the bandwidth information,
receive, from the remote device via the network interface, a second
portion of the content at a second quality in response to sending the
bandwidth information,
record the second portion of the content at the second quality as
part of the recording,
determine whether the device has finished the first download of
the content, and
schedule a second download of the content at a fixed quality
from a remote system in response to determining that the device has
finished the first download.
Lee
Hom
Virdi
References and Rejections
US 6,810,417 B2
US 2008/0086751 Al
US 2009/0300203 Al
Oct. 26, 2004
Apr. 10, 2008
Dec. 3, 2009
Claims 1-11, 13-18 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Virdi, Hom and Lee.
2
Appeal2015-001168
Application 12/879,194
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Brief, the Examiner's
rejection, the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments, and the
evidence of record. We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the
Examiner erred in finding Virdi teaches "schedule a second download of the
content at a fixed quality from a remote system in response to determining
that the device has finished the first download," as recited in claim 1
(emphasis added).
The Examiner finds:
Virdi discloses that the system would evaluate the downloaded
content as soon as the system detects the content has been
downloaded (e.g., as part of the process, Virdi' s system detects
the content has been downloaded, and once detected the
downloaded content, the system evaluate[s] the quality of the
content to see if it require[ s] re-download. [R ]efer[ ring] to par
0079-0083) ... the system would decide to re-download any
number of frames (e.g., which include the entire content) at a
lov,rer/steady/fixed rate (i.e., at a lower bit rate).
Ans. 9; see also Ans. 3.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown the cited
Virdi portions teach the italicized claim limitation. In fact, the Examiner's
finding supports Appellants' argument that Virdi teaches scheduling a
second download in response to determining whether the quality of the
content is adequate-not "in response to determining that the device has
finished the first download," as required by the claim." See App. Br. 13.
Further, we have reviewed the cited Virdi portions, and absent further
explanation from the Examiner, we do not see how such Virdi portions teach
"schedule a second download of the content at a fixed quality from a remote
3
Appeal2015-001168
Application 12/879,194
system in response to determining that the device has finished the first
download," as required by claim 1 (emphasis added).
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence to support
the rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1, and corresponding dependent claims 2-10
for similar reasons.
For similar reasons, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 11 and 21, and corresponding
dependent claims 13-18 and 22-23.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-11, 13-18 and
21-23.
REVERSED
4