Ex Parte Beck et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 23, 2016

13628563 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2016)

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.
13/628,563 09/27/2012 Andre Beck 809960-US-NP 6042
46304 7590 12/28/2016
RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
48 South Service Road
Suite 100
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
GIDADO, OLUWATOSIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2016 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):
ny office @ rml-law. com
jbr@rml-law.com
ipsnarocp @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDRE BECK, JAIRO O. ESTEBAN,
STEVEN A. BENNO, VOLKER F. HILT,
IVICA RIMAC, and YANG GUO
Appeal 2015-006828
Application 13/628,563
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-006828
Application 13/628,563
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejections of claims
1—5, 9, and 13—20.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
The invention relates to techniques for streaming content, specifically,
using variable cache replacement granularity for data portions of content
stored in a network cache (Spec. 1:10-11, 8:16—9:11). Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
associating at least one cache replacement granularity value
with a given one of a plurality of content streams, the given
content stream comprising a plurality of segments;
dividing the given content stream into two or more portions
each comprising two or more segments, a number of segments in
each of the two or more portions being based at least in part on a
value of the at least one cache replacement granularity associated
with the given content stream;
receiving a request for a given segment of the given content
stream in a network element;
identifying a given one of the two or more portions of the
given content stream which contains the given segment;
updating a value corresponding to the given portion of the
given content stream; and
1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claims 6—8 and 10—12 (Ans.
2). Thus, we only address the outstanding rejections of claims 1—5, 9, and
13-20.
2
Appeal 2015-006828
Application 13/628,563
determining whether to store the given portion of the given
content stream in a memory of the network element based at least
in part on the updated value corresponding to the given portion.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Buddhikot US 2002/0029282 A1 Mar. 7, 2002
Yoshimura US 6,952,712 B2 Oct. 4, 2005
Yeh US 2010/0040341 A1 Feb. 18,2010
Liu US 2013/0191511 A1 July 25, 2013
Vass US 2013/0238740 A1 Sept. 12, 2013
Agrawal US 2013/0318300 A1 Nov. 28, 2013
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1—5, 9, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yoshimura, Yeh, and Buddhikot.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yoshimura, Yeh, Buddhikot, and Agrawal.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yoshimura, Yeh, Buddhikot, Agrawal, and Vass.
Claims 15, 16, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yoshimura, Yeh, Buddhikot, Agrawal, Vass, and
Liu.
3
Appeal 2015-006828
Application 13/628,563
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—3 and 15—20
Appellants contend Buddhikot fails to teach the claimed step of
“determining whether to store the given portion of the given content stream
in a memory of the network element based at least in part on the updated
value corresponding to the given portion” (see App. Br. 5—7). We disagree
with Appellants.
Buddhikot describes a system for streaming multimedia clips in a
network by storing the clips in distributed streaming caches (SCs)
(Buddhikot, Abstract). The system segments clips into a number of data
segments and distributes the segments to a number of SCs, where each SC
determines whether to store or discard each segment (id.). Whether an SC
stores a particular segment of a clip depends on a probability based on usage
patterns of segments within clips (see Buddhikot || 47, 53). Thus, not every
segment of a clip is present at each SC; however, each SC stores every clip
with an indication of which segments for a given clip are stored (see
Buddhikot 177; Fig. 5). “Each SC records the Global Clip Hotness Rating
(GCHR) of each media clip and stores clips in an ordered list in decreasing
GCHR” (Buddhikot 176). “During replacement if the GCHR of a clip is
lower than some predefined GCHR threshold (i.e., alpha), complete removal
of the clip is warranted” (Buddhikot 179). We find Buddhikot’s
replacement of a clip in a cache based on a GCHR of the clip meets the
claim 1 limitation “determining whether to store the given portion of the
given content stream in a memory of the network element based at least in
part on the updated value corresponding to the given portion.”
Appellant argues “Buddhikot specifically describes a segment-bv-
segment cache replacement algorithm” (App. Br. 7), and Buddhikot “does
4
Appeal 2015-006828
Application 13/628,563
not make a determination as to whether to store an entire ‘clip’” (Reply Br.
3). We are not persuaded by this argument because, as quoted above,
Buddhikot discloses replacing a clip based on the GCHR of the clip.
Buddhikot also discloses “once a clip meets or exceeds the alpha threshold, a
clip should not be completely removed, instead, it is preferred to replace
segments of all stored clips from their end” (Buddhikot 179). However,
Buddhikot’s segment-by-segment replacement algorithm is performed only
after it is determined whether whole clips that fail to meet the initial alpha
threshold should be removed (see id.). Appellants’ argument does not
address this whole clip replacement feature in Buddhikot.
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1, and claims 2, 3, and 15—20 not specifically argued separately.
Claims 4 and 5
Appellants contend “the GCHR value of a given media clip is not
compared to the GCHRs of other media clips. Instead, Buddhikot executes
its segment-by-segment replacement algorithm for a media clip based on a
comparison of the GCHR of the media clip and the alpha and beta
thresholds.” (App. Br. 8). We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument.
Buddhikot performs clip removal “if the GCHR of a clip is lower than
some predefined GCHR threshold (i.e., alpha)” (Buddhikot 179). Thus,
although a clip with a higher GCHR value relative to other removed clips
may continue to be stored, this determination is based on a GCHR threshold
value, as opposed to whether the clip has a GCHR value “greater than a
specified number of values” of other clips, as required by claim 4. In other
words, Buddhikot’s clip replacement algorithm is based on the value of a
given clip’s GCHR, as opposed to whether the clip’s GCHR is greater than
5
Appeal 2015-006828
Application 13/628,563
the GCHRs of a set number of other clips. Accordingly, we find the
Examiner has not shown Buddhikot discloses “storing the given portion of
the given content stream . . . when the update value ... is greater than a
specified number of values corresponding to each of the other portions,” as
recited in claim 4.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 4, and claim 5 for similar reasons.
Claim 9
Appellants contend:
The “time stamp” in Buddhikot does not reflect an access or
request for a segment. Instead, the “time stamp” for a segment
in Buddhikot is its time from the beginning of the clip. Claim 9,
in contrast, recites that the updated value is a timestamp. The
recited value is updated on receiving a request for the given
segment of the given content stream. The updated value in claim
9 (the timestamp) therefore indicates how recently a given
segment was requested. In contrast, the “time stamp” of
Buddhikot simply indicates the timing of a segment within a
media clip.
(App. Br. 12). We agree with Appellants.
Buddhikot discloses “within a clip, data segments have decreasing
popularity as their time stamps increase, therefore segments within a clip
should be replaced starting from the end of the clip” (Buddhikot 178).
Here, we find Buddhikot merely takes note of the fact that segments at the
end of a clip are less popular than segments at the beginning of the clip. The
“time stamps” of Buddhikot’s segments are not related to the GCHR value
of a clip containing the segments, where the GCHR value is what the
Examiner maps to the claimed “updated value” (see Final Act. 4).
6
Appeal 2015-006828
Application 13/628,563
Accordingly, the Examiner has not shown Buddhikot teaches “the updated
value is a timestamp,” as recited in claim 9.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 9.
Claim 13
Appellants contend “[t]he GSHR and GCHR of Buddhikot, which
indicate the popularity of a segment and a clip, are not analogous to the
recited cache replacement granularity value” (App. Br. 17). We agree with
Appellants.
The Examiner finds Buddhikot discloses dynamically adjusting a
Global Segment Hotness Rating (GSHR) when a segment is accessed (Ans.
6). However, a GSHR rating is not analogous to the claimed “cache
replacement granularity value,” which defines the number of segments per
portion of a content stream. Accordingly, the Examiner has not shown
Buddhikot discloses “dynamically adjusting the at least one cache
replacement granularity value responsive to the receiving step,” as recited in
claim 13.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 13.
Claim 14
Appellants contend “Vass does not appear to describe dividing the
media document into two or more portions each comprising two or more
segments, much less mapping respective ones of the segments to respective
ones of the portions [in] a table data structure” (App. Br. 18). We are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument.
7
Appeal 2015-006828
Application 13/628,563
We first note that Buddhikot discloses portions (i.e., clips) of a
content stream divided into respective segments (see Buddhikot, Abstract).
Thus, the Examiner need only rely on Vass for teaching the use of a table
data structure. Vass discloses using a “received fragment table (RET) 145”
for storing information about pieces of streaming media content (Vass
136). Ans. 7.
We conclude it would have been obvious to use the well-known data
structure of a table, for example, Vass’s RFT 145, to map clips to their
respective segments in Buddhikot’s system. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417) (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one
device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”). In Buddhikot, one
would have understood the need to identity which segments belonged to
which clip, (see Buddhikot 177; Fig. 5), and it would have been within the
ordinary skill in the art to use a table data structure to maintain these
mappings where Vass shows it was known to use a table data structure to
track information on fragments of streaming media content.
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
14.
CONCLUSIONS
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4, 5,
9, and 13, but did not err in rejecting claims 1—3 and 14—20.
8
Appeal 2015-006828
Application 13/628,563
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 4, 5, 9, and
13 are reversed, and the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—3 and 14—20 are
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9