Ex Parte Chaddha

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 28, 2004

08855245 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 28, 2004)

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not binding precedent of the Board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