Ex Parte ChaddhaDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesDec 28, 200408855245 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 28, 2004) Copy Citation 1 The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board Paper No. 38 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _______________ Ex parte NAVIN CHADDHA ______________ Appeal No. 2004-2185 Application 08/855,245 _______________ ______ ON BRIEF _______________ Before THOMAS, BARRETT and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant has appealed to the Board from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1-23. Representative claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. In a multimedia server having a processor and a memory, said server coupled to at least one client computer via a network, a method for adaptively right-sizing multimedia data for one or more multicast groups, said multimedia data including at least one base layer and one or more enhancement layers additive to said at least one base layer, said method comprising the steps of: Appeal No. 2004-2185 Application 08/855,245 2 streaming said at least one base layer and at least one selected enhancement layer of said multimedia data to said at least one client computer via said one or more multicast groups by sending a plurality of subsets of an embedded bit stream to a plurality of multicast addresses; receiving, in the multimedia server, feedback from at least one client computer; and right-sizing said multimedia data for each of the multicast groups in response to the received feedback by causing the selection, for each individual multicast group, of at least a subset of the enhancement layers to be streamed to the multicast group as a function of the received feedback. The following references are relied on by the examiner: Chaddha et al. (Chaddha) 5,621,660 Apr. 15, 1997 Bolot et al. (Bolot), "Scalable Feedback Control for Multicast Video Distribution in the Internet," ACM copyright Notice, SIGCOMM 94-8/94, pp. 58-67. Claims 1-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Chaddha in view of Bolot. Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the examiner, reference is made to the brief for appellant's positions and to the answer for the examiner's positions. OPINION For the reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer as embellished upon here, we sustain the rejection of all claims on Appeal No. 2004-2185 Application 08/855,245 3 appeal, claims 1-23. Since the argued features of each independent claim 1, 10, 21, 22 and 23 appear to correspond to each other among these independent claims, we take as representative for our consideration independent claim 1 on appeal. The features of dependent claims 2-9 correspond in substance to the features recited in dependent claims 11-19. No arguments presented as to dependent claim 20. Appellant's basic argument is that neither reference relied upon by the examiner nor their combination teaches or suggests the aspect of right-sizing multimedia data by causing selection of at least a subset of a set of enhancement layers to be streamed to a multicast group as a function of feedback received from a client within this group. It is recognized that Bolot does not refer to the user enhancement layers but merely discloses the action of adjusting an output data stream, principally its data rate, in response to client feedback. It is further urged by appellant that right-sizing in Chaddha occurs on the client side unlike the present application where the right-sizing is performed on the server side. We do not agree with any of these assertions from our study in detail of Chaddha, even though the bulk of the arguments presented as to all claims on appeal in some manner focuses upon Appeal No. 2004-2185 Application 08/855,245 4 these considerations. From our study of Chaddha, the principal reference relied upon by the examiner, it appears to us that both the appellant and the examiner have not given adequate consideration to all the teachings and suggestions within this reference. Although appellant's consideration of Chaddha at pages 6 and 8 of the brief on appeal is accurate to the extent that it does discuss this reference, it does not appear to recognize significant teachings and suggestions therein. The encoder in Figure 2 of Chaddha appears to relate to the scalable video encoder in the server 20 in Figure 1. Figure 2 of Chaddha appears to correspond to Figures 4 and 5a of the disclosed invention. Thus, it is clear from Chaddha that the scalable video encoder 60 encodes three image resolutions, the base layer 260, the first enhancement layer 340 and the second enhancement layer 400. As indicated initially at column 6, lines 45-51, Chaddha's system first indicates that rate or bandwidth scalability is easily achieved by dropping index planes from the embedded bit stream. The ability to drop excess data for purposes is discussed further at the bottom half of column 6. It is noted in the initial lines of column 7 that video information involves the laying of video information as two streams, the base Appeal No. 2004-2185 Application 08/855,245 5 layer and the first and second enhancement layer streams. Because the base layer is stored as a separate stream from the enhancement layer data, the system is able to admit more users when fewer users choose to receive the enhancement layer data. Column 7, lines 7-10. Additionally, it is indicated at column 7, lines 27-30 that the server 20 may fetch a base signal frame block from a disc 90 in Figure 1 and transmit the selected sections over the network 30, 30'. Column 10 of Chaddha discuses the ability of the system to scale the video as a side effect of dropping less important packets in the discussion beginning at column 10, line 18. The ability to drop undesired packets of video information is further discussed at column 10 in a multitask environment. These portions of Chaddha indicate to us the selectability of particular data streams, including the base level and the plural enhancement levels, exists at least with the decoder along with inferences at least that the encoder itself may be made selective in its encoding operations. To substantiate this view, the examiner begins to rely upon the discussion at column 11 at the middle of this column. We would emphasize the importance of that discussion through line 6 of column 13 to support our Appeal No. 2004-2185 Application 08/855,245 6 conclusion that the subject matter of the claims on appeal would have been obvious to the artisan. Beginning at line 54 of column 11, it is clear that the client or user has the ability to specify or select directly the spatial resolution, frame rate and bandwidth directly. Of particular importance to us is the discussion at column 12, lines 23-48 which we reproduce here: The media server components include a session control agent, the audio transmission agent, and the video transmission agent. The user connects to the session control agent on the server system and arranges to pay for the video service and network bandwidth. The user can specify the cost he/she is willing to pay and an appropriately scaled stream will be provided by the server. The session control agent (e.g., admission control mechanism 110) then sets up the network delivery connections and starts the video and audio transmission agents. The session control agent 110 is the single point of entry for control operations from the consumers remote control, the network management system, and the electronic market. The audio and video transmission agents read the media data from the striped disks and pace the transmission of the data onto the network. The video transmission agent scales the embedded bit-stream in real-time by transmitting only the bit planes needed to reconstruct the selected resolution at the decoder. For example a 320X240 stream with 8 bits of base, 4 bits of enhancement signal at 15 frames per second will transmit every other frame of video data with all 5 packets for each frame of the base and only two packets containing the four most significant bits of the enhancement layer resulting in 864 Kb of network utilization. The server sends the video and audio Appeal No. 2004-2185 Application 08/855,245 7 either for a point-to-point situation or a multicast situation. These teachings appear to us to indicate to the artisan that the user is able to feed (back) to the server information as to the nature and extent of the scaled data stream the user wants to receive. Implicit within these teachings is the ability of the users to, at any time, select the scaled data stream requirements they are willing to pay for. This can be done in real-time. Thus, the entire data stream is selectable by user on a real-time basis such as to either prune/eliminate or grow/add, in the context of the disclosed and claimed invention. In the dependent claims noted earlier, the nature and extent of the totality of the scaled data stream is not only received by the encoders but is also sent by the server to the particular clients. Because Chaddha clearly teaches of the particular base layer and at least two enhancement layers, this implicitly means that the user is able to select and feedback the choice to the server which of the base layers, first and second enhancement layers, if any, the user desires to select or pay for. This concept of user feedback to a server is more explicit in the discussion in the paragraph bridging columns 12 and 13 which we reproduce here: Appeal No. 2004-2185 Application 08/855,245 8 End-to-end feedback is used in the on demand case to control the flow. In the multicast case, the destinations are slaved to the flow from the server with no feedback. The user interface agent serves as the control connection to the session agent on the media server passing flow control feedback as well as the user's start/stop controls. The user can specify the cost he or she is willing to pay and an appropriate stream will be provided by the system. In addition to the example reproduced earlier from column 12 at lines 42-49, Tables 1-5 at columns 13 and 14 also indicate the selectability from the user's perspective of the type of resolution desired among the base layers and first enhancement layers. It therefore appears to us from our study of this reference that the nature of the arguments we noted earlier in the general manner that appellant presents as to each of the claims on appeal are not well-founded. We agree, on the other hand, with appellant's view that Bolot does not teach anything related to enhancement layers. Significantly, however, Bolot's discussion at both columns at page 58 and, as noted by the examiner, the substance of column 1 of page 59 emphasizes that scalable feedback control systems exist for multicast video distribution systems in a feedback manner. To the extent the artisan may construe the teachings as Chaddha as not clearly indicating the ability to feedback in any environment, including a multicast Appeal No. 2004-2185 Application 08/855,245 9 environment, it is clear that Bolot plainly teaches the availability of doing this and the desirability of doing it according to the discussion at column 2 of page 58 and the initial lines of column 1 of page 59. We conclude therefore that Bolot is cumulative to teachings already either taught or strongly suggested in Chaddha, and that the teachings of Bolot clearly would have led the artisan to have enhanced the teachings and suggestions of Chaddha to advantageously make clear the desirability of feeding information back to the video source, the server, because of changing network conditions either explicitly or implicitly determined. It is believed that the extent of the discussion in this opinion has adequately provided a basis for the obviousness of the subject matter of dependent claims 2-9 to the extent they are argued in the brief. It appears to us as well as we believe to the artisan that right sizing in Chaddha occurs not only at the client or decoder side, but as well as at the server or source of the video information side of the data stream. Even though Bolot does not mention enhancement layers per se, the teaching value of this reference is viewed by us to be so strong as to strongly suggest to the artisan that Chaddha's inherent ability to prune or eliminate as well as to grow or add enhancement layers would Appeal No. 2004-2185 Application 08/855,245 10 have been suggested as the means of implementing bandwidth control etc. according to the teachings of Bolot where Chaddha already teaches or suggests these capabilities anyway. Both Chaddha and Bolot indicate that the server informs the respective clients of the content in a broad manner as recited in claim 6 on appeal of the multimedia data to be sent to the respective clients. Chaddha makes clear beginning at column 1 in its prior art statement that both temporal and spatial domains are utilized as recited in dependent claims 7 and 8. Finally, the Laplacian algorithm recited in dependent claim 9 is discussed even in the abstract of Chaddha. In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. Appeal No. 2004-2185 Application 08/855,245 11 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED James D. Thomas ) Administrative Patent Judge ) ) ) ) Lee E. Barrett ) BOARD OF PATENT Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND ) INTERFERENCES ) ) Stuart S. Levy ) Administrative Patent Judge ) JDT/cam Appeal No. 2004-2185 Application 08/855,245 12 Lee and Hayes, PLLC 421 W. Riverside Avenue Suite 500 Spokane, WA 99201 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation