Ex Parte Cope

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 31, 2008

09998569 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 31, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte WARREN COPE
_____________

Appeal 2008-5852
Application 09/998,569
Technology Center 2400
______________

Decided: December 31, 2008
_______________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT and,
ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) of the final
rejection of claims 1 through 5, 7 through 20, 22 through 35, and 37 through
45.
Appeal 2008-5852
Application 09/998,569

We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed towards a system to provide video on
demand in situations where the network transfer rate is slower than the video
display rate. See page 3 of Appellant’s Specification. Claim 1 is
representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A video system comprising:
a network interface configured to receive a network signal from
a communication network wherein the network signal includes video;
a memory configured to store the video from the network
signal;
a video interface configured to transfer a video signal to a video
display wherein the video signal includes the video from the memory;
and
a processing system configured to determine when to initiate
the transfer of the video signal from the video interface based on a
first time period and a second time period wherein the first time
period is determined based on the video display rate times a first
amount of the video in the memory and the second time period is
determined based on a network transfer rate times a second amount of
the video to be subsequently received in the network signal.

REFERENCES

Shah-Nazaroff US 6,157,377 Dec. 5, 2000
Schuster US 6,175,871 B1 Jan. 16, 2001

Gross, Harold, et al., RealPlayer 8 User Manual, RealNetworks, 2000,
pp 3-10, 19, 37-51, 57-73.

2

Appeal 2008-5852
Application 09/998,569

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 5, 7 through 11, 13, 14,
16 through 20, 22 through 26, 28, 29, 31 through 35, 37 through 41, 43, and
44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatenable over Gross in view of
Schuster.1 The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 3 through 7 of the
Answer.2
The Examiner has rejected claims 12, 15, 27, 30, 42, and 45 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatenable over Gross in view of Schuster and
Shah Nazaroff. The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 7 and 8 of the Answer.
ISSUE
Appellant argues on pages 4 thorough 6 of the Brief and pages 1
through 3 of the Reply Brief,3 that the Examiner’s rejection is in error.
Appellant argues that contrary to the Examiner’s findings, Gross does not
teach initiating video playback based on the network transfer rate and the
video display rate as claimed. Further, Appellant argues that Schuster does
not initiate video playback based on the network transfer rate and the video
display rate as claimed.
Thus, Appellant’s contentions present us with the issue: did the
Examiner err in finding that the combination of the references teaches
transferring video to the video display based upon the video display rate, the

1 We note that the Examiner’s summary of the rejection (on page 3 of the
Answer) does not identify claim 43, but the reasoning supporting the
rejection addresses claim 43 (on page 7 of the Answer).
2 Throughout the opinion we refer to the Answer mailed March 22, 2007.
3 Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the Brief, received
December 14, 2006, and the Reply Brief, received May 21, 2007.
3

Appeal 2008-5852
Application 09/998,569

network transfer rate, and the amount of video to be subsequently received
as claimed?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Gross is the instruction manual for the program realplayertm. The
program allows a user to play clips of media (i.e., both live streaming
media and recorded media). See pages 10 and 19.
2. The control panel for the media player includes several control
buttons and other indicators. One of the indicators, the position slider,
identifies the current location in the media clip. One skilled in the art
would understand that this indicator also provides an indication of the
amount of video which has not been played. However, this indication
is not available with live media play (where media is being played as
it is being downloaded). Gross, figure 3-2 on page 10 and table on
page 19.
3. Gross teaches that realplayertm makes use of a buffer when playing a
streaming media file. Page 37.
4. Gross teaches that a buffer is used when watching streaming video
which allows the user to experience the media (watch video, listen to
audio) as the media is being loaded. The player plays portions of the
media that have been loaded and buffered while the program is
receiving and buffering later portions of the media. Pages 43 and 44.
5. The user of realplayertm can adjust the bandwidth and the buffer size
of the player so that streaming video can be viewed without
interruption. Gross page 65.
4

Appeal 2008-5852
Application 09/998,569

6. Schuster teaches a method of communicating media over a network in
real time. Abstract.
7. Schuster’s system encodes the media into a plurality of packets for
transmission. At the receiving end, the packets are decoded and
buffered for playout. Col. 2, ll. 46-59.
8. The receiver selects a parameter for evaluating the network and uses
this parameter to adjust the buffer length. Schuster, col. 3, ll. 5-15.

ANALYSIS
Appellant’s contentions have persuaded us that the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 1, 16, and 31 is in error. Claim 1 recites a
video interface to transfer a video signal to a display, and “a processing
system configured to determine when to initiate the transfer of the video
signal from the video interface based on a first time period and a second
time period wherein the first time period is determined based on the video
display rate times a first amount of the video in the memory and the second
time period is determined based on a network transfer rate times a second
amount of the video to be subsequently received in the network signal.”
Independent claims 16 and 31 recite similar limitations. Thus, the scope of
the claims includes that the time to transfer video to a display is based upon
the video display rate, the amount of video in memory, the network transfer
time, and the amount of video to be reviewed.
The Examiner states:
Gross also discloses initiating playback based on network
transfer rate and video display rate. As Gross discloses, clips are
encoded at a certain bandwidth (higher bandwidth, higher quality, in
general) and that RealPlayer keeps track of this bandwidth (see
"Encoding", page 47, lines 16-32). RealPlayer also monitors the
5

Appeal 2008-5852
Application 09/998,569

network connection and keeps track of the connection from the server
to the client (page 51, lines 17-23). While RealPlayer can pick the
stream that is encoded at the bit rate closest to the user's network
connection, it also "buffers automatically" to allow a user to watch
high quality media over slower connection. Playback begins when
enough of the stream is buffered. While this takes time, it is far better
than buffering the entire clip (page 52, 5-9). The examiner also
wishes to note that Schuster is relied upon to disclose the automatic
resizing of buffers and that this feature is explicitly disclosed on
column 3, in lines 11-15. Given the stated capabilities of Gross, the
examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one skilled in
the art at the time to utilize buffer resizing, as disclosed in Schuster,
with the automatic buffering of higher quality video over lower
quality connections so that user's viewing experience can be improved
without taking up unnecessary resources.

We disagree with the Examiner’s reasoning. We agree with the
Examiner that both references teach buffering media as part of the playing a
live media file. Facts 1, 4, 6, and 7. However, we disagree with the
Examiner that the combination of the references teaches or makes obvious
that the size of the buffer, which in effect determines the time to begin
payout, is selected based upon the data transfer rate and the amount of media
(video) to be subsequently loaded. While Gross does teach that there is a
display that includes an indication of the size of the video, this feature is
disabled when the player is playing streaming video (video transmitted to the
player over a network) Fact 2. Further, the Examiner has not identified a
teaching in Schuster, nor do we find a teaching in Schuster, which describes
that the receiver makes decisions based upon the amount of media to be
subsequently loaded. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 5, 7 through 11, 13, 14, 16 through 20, 22
6

Appeal 2008-5852
Application 09/998,569

through 26, 28, 29, 31 through 35, 37 through 41, 43, and 44 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gross in view of Schuster.
Claims 12, 15, 27, 30, 42, and 45 ultimately depend upon claims 1 or
31. The Examiner’s rejection of these claims relies on Gross in view of
Schuster to teach the limitations of claims 1 and 31. The Examiner has not
found, nor do we find, that the additional teachings of Shah-Nazaroff make
up for the deficiencies in the rejection of claims 1 and 31 discussed above.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 15, 27,
30, 42, and 45 for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

7

Appeal 2008-5852
Application 09/998,569

REVERSED

Eld

SPRINT
6391 SPRINT PARKWAY
KSOPHT0101-Z2100
OVERLAND PARK, KS 66251-2100
8