Ex Parte Dorso et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2016

12876152 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016)

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.
12/876,152 09/05/2010 Gregory Dorso TNGO-001 1696
101698 7590 12/30/2016
TANGO C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP
123 WESTRIDGE DRIVE
WATSONVTT.T.E, CA 95076
EXAMINER
CHANG, TOM Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2016 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):
patents @ wagnerblecher.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREGORY DORSO, URI RAZ, and ERIC SETTON
Appeal 2016-000453
Application 12/876,1521
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
Final Rejection of claims 1—24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants indicate the Real Party in Interest is TangoMe, Inc. App. Br. 2
Appeal 2016-000453
Application 12/876,152
Invention
The claimed invention is directed to communication among users via
user devices associated with a peer-to-peer computer environment. Spec.
120.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A computer implemented method for communicating
in a peer-to peer computer environment, said method
comprising:
contacting a tracker peer and obtaining a list of peer
nodes at a user device;
selecting a subset of peer nodes from said list of peer
nodes to act as relay nodes for a communication;
selecting an appropriate compression scheme for said
communication at said user device;
dividing a communication from said user device into a
first portion and a second portion at said user device;
transmitting data of said first portion generated by said
user device for said communication to at least one relay node
for said at least one relay node to forward to at least one other
user device, wherein said relay node is one of said subset of
said peer nodes, wherein said relay node transcodes said data to
a base layer and an enhanced layer such that only said base
layer is relayed to a device with lower capabilities while both
said base layer and said enhanced layer are relayed to a device
with higher capabilities;
transmitting said second portion of said communication
from said user device to a second relay node to forward to said
at least one other user device; and
receiving data generated by said at least one other user
device for said communication at said user device from said at
least one relay node forwarded from said at least one other user.
2
Appeal 2016-000453
Application 12/876,152
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7—9, 12—14, 16, 19—21, and 24 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Parr et al. (US 2009/0106393
Al; Apr. 23, 2009) and Zhao (US 2011/0153782 Al; June 23, 2011).
Claims 6 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Parr, Zhao, and Johnson et al. (US 2007/0124308 Al;
May 31,2007).
Claims 10, 11, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Parr, Zhao, and Bachet et al. (US 2009/0300673
Al; Dec. 3,2009).
Claims 3, 5, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Parr, Zhao, and Trossell et al. (US 2010/0111095
Al; May 6, 2010).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants’ arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our
own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office
Action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the findings and reasons set
forth in the Examiner’s Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by
the Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for
emphasis as follows.
Independent Claim 1
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim
1, because the combination of Parr and Zhao does not teach or suggest
“dividing a communication from said user device into a first portion and a
3
Appeal 2016-000453
Application 12/876,152
second portion at said user device [and] . . . transmitting said second portion
of said communication from said user device to a second relay node to
forward to said at least one other user device.” App. Br. 8—12; Reply Br. 2—
4. Appellants argue that Parr’s description of “transmitting each chunk of
the media data item,” does not teach or suggest “dividing a communication
from said user device into a first portion and a second portion at said user
device,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11. In other words, Appellants
argue, Parr does not teach or suggest that the communication is split at the
user device. Id.
The Examiner finds, however, that Parr teaches
a peer-to-peer (P2P) system for data exchange. In a P2P system
it is understood that the devices that share data with other peers
are user devices. In fact Parr explicitly makes this point in | 4
stating “In a peer-to-peer system, data is stored by some or
all of the user devices, or peers, within the system and each
device makes the data available for direct download by the
other peers in the network.”
Ans. 14 (citing Parr 14).
The Examiner finds that Parr’s “seeding servers” are in fact user
devices because in the P2P phase, seeding servers act as another peer. Id.
Although Appellants’ specification deals with a “peer-to-peer computer
environment,” the Examiner notes, and we concur, Appellant has not defined
the term “user device” in the claims or Specification that is limited in scope.
Id. Accordingly, any computing device, such as a server, which may be
used by a user in a peer-to-peer environment, may be interpreted reasonably
as being a user device. Id.
Appellants also argue that Zhao teaches away from the recited
“dividing a communication from said user device into a first portion and a
4
Appeal 2016-000453
Application 12/876,152
second portion at said user device,” because Zhao does not require “the
transmitting node to expend unnecessary processing resources encoding two
different versions of the stream." App. Br. 12.
The Examiner, however, does not rely upon Zhao to teach the dividing
of a communication into a first portion and a second portion. Ans. 15.
Rather, the Examiner relies on Parr for this teaching. Id. Zhao is relied
upon for teaching that when a first portion of data is sent to a relay node, the
relay node creates base and enhanced layers. Id.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding that
the combination of Parr and Zhao teaches or suggests “dividing a
communication from said user device into a first portion and a second
portion at said user device, [and] . . . transmitting said second portion of said
communication from said user device to a second relay node to forward to
said at least one other user device,” as recited in claim 1. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1.
Remaining Claims 2—24
With respect to the remaining claims, Appellants have either repeated
the same arguments proffered with respect to independent claim 1, or have
not presented separate, substantive arguments for those claims. See App. Br.
8—18. Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting these
claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We conclude that the Board has reasonably interpreted
Rule 41.37 to require applicants to articulate more substantive arguments if
they wish for individual claims to be treated separately.”). Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—24.
5
Appeal 2016-000453
Application 12/876,152
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—24.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6