Ex Parte Benno et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 12, 2016

13019613 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/019,613 02/02/2011
59978 7590 08/16/2016
Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC (ALU)
Attn: Jeffrey M. Weinick
One Boland Drive
West Orange, NJ 07052
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Steven A. Benno
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.
807488-US-NP 1800
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, HAU H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2016 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):
patent@csglaw.com
ipsnarocp@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN A. BENNO and JAIRO 0. ESTEBAN
Appeal2015-004844
Application 13/019 ,613 1
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-22. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Alcatel Lucent
(Appeal Br. 1 ).
Appeal2015-004844
Application 13/019,613
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1-22 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Grigorovitch et al. (US 2005/0066063 Al,
published Mar. 24, 2005) ("Grigorovitch") and Visharam et al. (US
2010/0235542 Al, published Sept. 16, 2010) ("Visharam"). Final Act. 2-6.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention generally relates to "systems and methods for
streaming data in a network, and more particularly to systems and methods
for managing cache storage in an adaptive video streaming system." Spec.
i-f 1. Independent claims 1, 16, and 20 are directed to methods; independent
claim 6 is directed to an apparatus; and independent claim 11 is directed to a
non-transitory computer readable medium. App. Br. 18-21.
Claim 1 recites:
A method for managing video data stored in a cache, the
method comprising:
selecting a plurality of encoded video segments that are stored
in a cache memory and associated with every nth video segment in a
sequence of video segments of a video program, where n is an integer,
wherein the selecting is based on at least one of a determined video
segment utilization frequency, video segment size, number of cache
misses and frequency of cache misses; and
moving the plurality of selected encoded video segments from a
first storage device within the cache memory to a second storage
device within the cache memory, wherein an access time for the
second storage device is slower than an access time for the first
storage device.
2
Appeal2015-004844
Application 13/019,613
ANALYSIS
\Ve have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner en-ed. \Ve are not persuaded that Appellants
identify reversible en-or. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in
the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, we agree with the Examiner that all the
pending claims are unpatentab1e over the cited combination of references.
\Ve adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection frmn
which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer. \Ve provide the
fr)IIowing explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and
findings primarily for emphasis.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-18, 20, and 21
Appellants contend Grigorovitch's temporally non-contiguous media
cache video segments do not teach or suggest "selecting a plurality of
encoded video segments ... associated with every nth video segment in a
sequence of video segments," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8-9 (emphasis
added). In response, the Examiner finds Grigorovitch's video segments
teach the association of video segments in the scenario when n is equal to 1.
Ans. 6. We agree with the Examiner.
As cited by the Examiner, and in accordance with Figure 3,
Grigorovitch describes:
[0037] FIG. 3 illustrates a graphical representation 300 of an
arrangement of media cache streams and media cache segments
created by the media cache module 212 for a hypothetical
streaming media file. The media cache streams and segment are
shown as being aligned vertically with respect to a time axis 340,
where the time axis indicates the playing time of the streaming
media file.
3
Appeal2015-004844
Application 13/019,613
[0038] As shown, the media cache module 212 has created three
separate media cache video streams: media cache video stream
(1) 310, media cache video stream (2) 312, and media cache
video stream (3) 314, each of which is associated with a different
bit rate ....
[0039] As shown, the media cache module 212 has created: two
temporally non-contiguous media cache video segments 320 and
326 within media cache video stream (1) 310; one media cache
video segment 322 within media cache video stream (2) 312; and
one media cache video segment 324 within media cache video
stream (3) ....
Grigorovitch i-fi-137-39 (emphasis added). In other words, Grigorovitch
describes separate video streams, each with at least one video segment,
wherein each period of time is shown has having an associated video
segment in a video stream. See Grigorovitch Fig. 3. As such, Grigorovitch
suggests encoded video segments that are associated with each and every
video segment in video streams.
When the claimed n is equal to 1, the selected encoded video
segments are associated with each and every video segment. Appellants
have not provided persuasive evidence that selecting a plurality of encoded
video segments that are stored in a cache memory and associated with every
nth video segment in a sequence of video segments of a video program,
where n is an integer, as required by claim 1, is not taught or otherwise
suggested by Grigorovitch's encoded video segments associated with each
and every video segment of a video stream.
Appellants further contend Grigorovitch does not teach or suggest
"the selecting is based on at least one of a determined video segment
utilization frequency, video segment size, number of cache misses and
frequency of cache misses," as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 9-10. As
4
Appeal2015-004844
Application 13/019,613
noted by the Examiner, the claim uses alternative language "at least one of'
and Grigorovitch need only teach or suggest using one of a determined
video segment utilization frequency, video segment size, number of cache
misses, and frequency of cache misses. See Ans. 6.
As cited by the Examiner, Grigorovitch describes:
[T]he networking module 208 determines the streaming
rate of the streaming media file between the streaming module
220 and the networking module 208 based on a variety of
different factors ... such as sending test messages between
devices 102 and 104, monitoring current and past behavior of
connections between devices 102 and 104 ....
Grigorovitch i-f 30 (emphasis added); See Ans. 7. Grigorovitch further
describes "cache management functionality such as monitoring the
expiration of items in the cache ... and the networking module 208 may use
this functionality in performing the various operations of the networking
module .... " Grigorovitch i-f 3 1.
In other words, Grigorovitch describes monitoring connections and
also providing cache management functionality including the monitoring of
items that expire in the cache. As such, Grigorovitch suggests cache
management functionality by checking for video segment expiration or
utilization frequency.
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence that selecting based
on at least one of a determined video segment utilization frequency, video
segment size, number of cache misses and frequency of cache misses, as
required by claim 1, is not taught or otherwise suggested by Grigorovitch's
monitoring of video segment expiration for cache management.
We also note that Paragraphs 119-126 in Visharam describe buffer
management, including utilizing hits and misses as well as buffer eviction
5
Appeal2015-004844
Application 13/019,613
based on use count and age. As such, we note Visharam also teaches the
cache management factors utilizing cache misses as well as utilization
frequency.
Although Appellants later contend that Grigorovitch' s creation of a
video stream does not teach or suggest the "selecting" recited in claim 1, we
find that this belated argument is waived. Reply Br. 3; See Ex parte Borden,
93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) ("[T]he reply brief [is
not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the
principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner's rejections~ but were not").
Appellants could have presented this ne\v argument in suppmi of claim 1 in
the Appeal Brief: such that we \vould have had benefit of the Examiner's
evaluation of the argument in the responsive Answer. Appellants do not
explain what good cause there might be to consider the new argument
Appellants' new argument is thus untimely and has; accordingly, not been
considered. Id.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as the rejection of commensurate independent
claims 6, 11, 16, and 20, not separately argued, as well as the rejections of
dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, 17-19, 21, and 22, not separately
argued. See App. Br. 11-12, 14, 16.
Claims 3, 8, 13, 19, and 22
Appellants contend Grigorovitch' s temporally non-contiguous video
segments do not teach or suggest "selecting encoded video segments that are
stored in a cache memory and associated with every second video segment
in a sequence of video segments of a video program," as recited in claim 3.
6
Appeal2015-004844
Application 13/019,613
App. Br. 15. The Examiner finds, with regards to claim 1, that
Grigorovitch's video segments teach the association of video segments in
the scenario when n is equal to 1. Ans. 6. We agree with the Examiner.
Grigorovitch describes separate video streams, each with at least one
video segment, wherein each period of time is shown has having an
associated video segment in a video stream. See Grigorovitch i-fi-137-39, Fig.
3. As such, Grigorovitch thereby suggests encoded video segments that are
associated with each and every video segment in video streams.
When the claimed n is equal to 1, the selected encoded video
segments are associated with every video segment. We note that if every
video segment is selected, then every second video segment is also selected.
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence that selecting video
segments associated with every second video segment in a sequence of video
segments, as required by claim 3, is not taught or otherwise suggested by
Grigorovitch's encoded video segments associated with each and every
video segment of a video stream.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent
claim 3, as well as the rejection of commensurate dependent claims 8, 13,
19, and 22, not separately argued. See App. Br. 16.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-22 is affirmed.
7
Appeal2015-004844
Application 13/019,613
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
8