Ex Parte Chaddha

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 26, 2003

08855246 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 26, 2003)

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was not written for publication and is not binding precedent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. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte NAVIN CHADDHA
__________
Appeal No. 2001-0565
Application 08/855,246
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before HAIRSTON, RUGGIERO and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 28 and 30 through 44.
The disclosed invention relates to method and apparatus for
streaming data to first and second multicast groups.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. In a server coupled to at least one client computer via
a network, a method for streaming data to a first multicast group
and a second multicast group, said method comprising:
Appeal No. 2001-0565
Application No. 08/855,246
2
streaming a first base layer and a first at least one
enhancement layer of said data to said first multicast group,
said first at least one enhancement layer additive to said first
base layer; and
streaming a second base layer and a second at least one
enhancement layer of said data to said second multicast group,
said second at least one enhancement layer additive to said
second base layer.

The references relied on by the examiner are:
Chaddha et al. (Chaddha) 5,621,660 Apr. 15, 1997
Tomoda et al. (Tomoda) 5,832,229 Nov. 3, 1998
(filed July 26, 1996)
Claims 1 through 28 and 30 through 44 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tomoda in view of
Chaddha.
Reference is made to the final rejection (paper number 9),
the briefs (paper numbers 14 and 16) and the answer (paper number
15) for the respective positions of the appellant and the
examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
28 and 30 through 44.
Tomoda discloses a multicast communication system in which a
user at a terminal 101 joins or leaves a multicast group (Figure
1; column 1, lines 11 through 15). The regions 204 through 206
Appeal No. 2001-0565
Application No. 08/855,246
3
are in a virtual space, and they correspond to separate multicast
groups. The user joins or leaves a multicast group by
positioning the icon 207 within one of the regions (column 6,
lines 55 through 62; column 9, lines 16 through 23).
The examiner acknowledges (answer, page 5) that “Tomoda does
not explicitly teach the claimed limitation of streaming a first
base layer and a first at least one enhancement layer of said
data, said first at least one enhancement layer additive to said
first base layer.”
Chaddha discloses a base layer and first and second
enhancement layers, and “[c]ollectively the base layer, and first
and second enhancement layers comprise the single embedded
bitstream that may be multicast over heterogeneous networks
. . . .” (column 3, lines 21 through 26).
The examiner further acknowledges (answer, page 5) that
“Tomoda and Chaddha do not explicitly disclose the claimed
limitation wherein said first base layer is different from said
second base layer, and said first at least one enhancement layer
is different from said second at least one enhancement layer.”
In view of the noted teachings of Tomoda and Chaddha, and
the acknowledged shortcomings in the teachings of these
references, we find that the examiner’s conclusions (answer,
Appeal No. 2001-0565
Application No. 08/855,246
4
pages 5 through 16) hold little, if any, weight with respect to
the issue of obviousness of the claimed subject matter. Stated
differently, the examiner’s reasoning and unsupported conclusions
can not take the place of an evidentiary showing in the record of
the obviousness of the claimed subject matter. In the absence of
such an evidentiary showing, we agree with appellant’s argument
(reply brief, pages 1 through 3) that the examiner has resorted
to impermissible hindsight to demonstrate the obviousness of the
claimed subject matter.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 28
and 30 through 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:svt
Appeal No. 2001-0565
Application No. 08/855,246
5
Lee & Hayes PLLC
421 W. Riverside Avenue
Suite 500
Spokane, WA 99201