Ex Parte Delpuch

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2017

12795425 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/795,425 06/07/2010 Alain Delpuch 2050.248US2 1896
44367 7590 02/01/2017
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/OPEN TV
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0938
EXAMINER
LANGHNOJA, KUNAL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2017 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW @blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALAIN DELPUCH
Appeal 2016-003194
Application 12/795,425
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 33, 35—50, 52, and 53. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1—32, 34, and 51 have been cancelled.
We REVERSE.
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to a method and
apparatus for applying a variable compression factor to an incoming video
Appeal 2016-003194
Application 12/795,425
signal for use with personal video recorders, in an interactive television
system (Abstract; Spec. 11). Claim 33, reproduced below with argued
limitations emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
33. A method for using a look-ahead data reduction scheme in a
distributed data processing system, the method comprising:
receiving an indication to store a program at a client device, the
indication being received prior to the program being received at
the client device;
accessing a user profile of a user associated with the client
device, the user profile including data indicating programs in the
past that were selected by the user for compression;
determining whether a data storage device coupled to the client
device has available storage capacity sufficient to store the
program based on a data storage requirement for the program;
and
in response to determining the data storage device does not have
available storage capacity sufficient to store the program,
selecting one of a plurality of discrete data reduction
factors for compressing the program based on the available
storage capacity of the data storage device, the data storage
requirement for the program, and the data indicating
programs in the past that were selected by the user for
compression,
sending a message to a provider of the program to
compress the program according to the selected discrete
data reduction factor prior to the program being conveyed
to the client device, and
receiving the compressed program from the provider,
wherein the provider has compressed the program and
2
Appeal 2016-003194
Application 12/795,425
conveyed the compressed program to the client device in
response to receiving the message.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
US 2001/0047517 A1
US 2002/0110353 A1
US 6,532,593 B1
US 2003/0237097 A1
US 7,257,316 B2
Christopoulos et al.
Potrebic et al.
Moroney
Marshall et al.
Yamato et al.
Nov. 29, 2001
Aug. 15,2002
Mar. 11,2003
Dec. 25, 2003
Aug. 14, 2007
REJECTIONS
Claims 33, 35, 36, 41—44, 49, 50, 52, and 53 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Moroney, Marshall, and
Christopoulos (Final Act. 4—7).
Claims 37, 38, 45, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Moroney, Marshall, Christopoulos, and Potrebic
(Final Act. 7—8).
Claims 39, 40, 47, and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Moroney, Marshall, Christopoulos, and Yamato
(Final Act. 8—9).
3
Appeal 2016-003194
Application 12/795,425
ISSUE
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 33, 35, 36, 41-44, 49, 50, 52, and 53
Appellant contends the invention, as recited in claims 33, 35, 36, 41—
44, 49, 50, 52, and 53, is not obvious over Moroney, Marshall, and
Christopoulos (App. Br. 8—16). The issue presented by the arguments is:
Issue: Does the combination of Moroney, Marshall, and
Christopoulos teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious:
“the user profile including data indicating programs in the past
that were selected by the user for compression” and “selecting
one of a plurality of discrete data reduction factors for
compressing the program based on . . . the data indicating
programs in the past that were selected by the user for
compression” and
“in response to determining the data storage device does not have
available storage capacity sufficient to store the program” and
“sending a message to a provider of the program to compress the
program according to the selected discrete data reduction factor
prior to the program being conveyed to the client device,”
as recited in claim 33?
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends Moroney depicts an electronic program guide and
subsequent screens from which a user may select a program to record and to
further select an associated recording quality at which to record (App. Br. 9
(citing Moroney, 2:40-49)). According to Appellant, Moroney teaches
setting default recording quality levels for any program subsequently
recorded or for particular channels prior to the transcoding and storing (App.
Br. 9). However, Appellant argues, Moroney does not teach quality
4
Appeal 2016-003194
Application 12/795,425
selection based on programs in the past selected for compression by the user
(id.). Moreover, Appellant contends, Moroney’s selection of a default
quality level does not teach past quality selections for programs in the past
that were selected by the user for compression (id.). Appellant asserts
Moroney does not maintain any data indicating programs in the past were
selected by the user for compression; rather, Appellant argues, Moroney
teaches a default quality level selection which provides no indication of a
past program compression selection (id. at 10).
Moroney teaches storing a desired quality level for particular channels
(Moroney, 8:23—24). The Examiner finds Moroney teaches quality
options/preference may be previously set with respect to genres, programs,
and/or channels (Ans. 7). Although we agree with the Examiner that
Moroney teaches a quality option may be set, the Examiner has not shown
Moroney teaches or suggests a user profile that includes data that indicates
past programs which had been selected by the user for compression.
Instead, Moroney teaches programs or channels are selected by the user for
future compression (Moroney, 8:18—25.) Thus, the Examiner has not
shown, nor do we readily find, Moroney teaches or suggests the user profile
includes the recited past programs selected for compression or selection
based on data indicating the recited past programs.
Therefore, Appellant has persuaded us the Examiner has failed to
show the combination of Moroney, Marshall, and Christopoulos teaches,
suggests, or otherwise renders obvious “the user profile including data
indicating programs in the past that were selected by the user for
compression” and “selecting one of a plurality of discrete data reduction
factors for compressing the program based on . . . the data indicating
5
Appeal 2016-003194
Application 12/795,425
programs in the past that were selected by the user for compression,” as
recited in independent claim 33. Independent claims 42 and 50
commensurately recite the disputed limitation.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. For
the reasons set forth with respect to claim 33, commensurately recited
independent claims 42 and 50 stand and furthermore, dependent claims 35,
36, 41, 43, 44, 49, 52, and 53, stand with their respective independent
claims. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 33, 35, 36,
41—44, 49, 50, 52, and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
Moroney, Marshall, and Christopoulos.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 37—40 and 45—48
Dependent claims 37-40 and 45—48 also stand with their respective
independent claims. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejections of claims
37, 38, 45, and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Moroney, Marshall, Christopoulos, and Potrebic and claims 39, 40, 47, and
48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moroney, Marshall,
Christopoulos, and Yamato.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 33, 35, 36, 41—44, 49, 50, 52, and
53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moroney, Marshall,
and Christopoulos is reversed.
6
Appeal 2016-003194
Application 12/795,425
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 37, 38, 45, and 46 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moroney, Marshall, Christopoulos, and
Portrebic is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 39, 40, 47, and 48 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moroney, Marshall, Christopoulos, and
Yamato is reversed.
REVERSED
7