Ex Parte Fear

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2017

14017695 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 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.
14/017,695 09/04/2013 Andrew Fear AU-13-0217-US1 4996
102469 7590 06/29/2017
PARKER JUSTISS, P.C./Nvidia
14241 DALLAS PARKWAY
SUITE 620
DALLAS, TX 75254
EXAMINER
LE, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2017 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):
docket@pj-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW FEAR
Appeal 2017-004765
Application 14/017,6951
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which are all the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is NVIDIA Corporation.
App. Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed August
8, 2016; Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed January 23, 2017; Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.”) mailed November 23, 2016; Final Office Action (“Final
Act.”) mailed February 24, 2016; and original Specification (“Spec.”), filed
September 4, 2013.
Appeal 2017-004765
Application 14/017,695
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to providing real-time assistance
regarding a cloud-based application. Abstract; Title. The method, system,
and application server of Appellant’s invention are operable to transmit a
modified rendered video stream toward a user requesting assistance with an
original rendered video stream, the modified rendered video stream being
modified based on a modification received from a user providing assistance.
Abstract.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Representative claim 1 is
reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics'.
1. A system for providing real-time assistance regarding a
cloud-based application, comprising:
an assistance request receiver operable to receive from a
user requesting assistance an assistance request regarding said
cloud-based application;
a rendered video stream diverter associated with said
assistance request receiver and operable to reroute an original
rendered video stream associated with said user requesting
assistance to a user providing assistance; and
a modification receiver associated with said assistance
request receiver and operable to receive from said user
providing assistance at least one modification regarding said
original rendered video stream without having to modify said
cloud-based application, a stream transmitter associated with
said modification receiver operable to transmit a modified
rendered video stream toward said user requesting assistance
that has been modified based on said at least one modification.
App. Br. 13—17 (Claims App’x).
2
Appeal 2017-004765
Application 14/017,695
Examiner’s Rejections & References3
(1) Claims 1—4, 6, 8—11, 13, 15—18, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gage et al. (US
2013/0106989 Al; published May 2, 2013; “Gage”), Domke et al. (US
2014/0208163 Al; published July 24, 2014; “Domke”), and Covell et al.
(US 2006/0282774 Al; published Dec. 14, 2006; “Covell”). Final Act. 6-
16.
(2) Claims 5, 12, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gage, Domke, Covell, and Joy et al. (US
2012/0102418 Al; published Apr. 26, 2012; “Joy”). Final Act. 16-18.
(3) Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gage, Domke, Covell, and Zalewski (US
2011/0086706 Al; published Apr. 14,2011). Final Act. 18-19.
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellant’s arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the combination of Gage, Domke, and Covell teaches or suggests
the disputed “modification” limitation, i.e., a “modification . . . transmitter
. . . operable to transmit a modified rendered video stream toward said user
requesting assistance that has been modified based on said at least one
modification,” the “at least one modification regarding said original
rendered video stream” that is “associated with said user requesting
3 Appellant acknowledges (App. Br. 5) the Examiner’s claim interpretation
for claims 1—7 and 15—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (Final Act. 2—5). Appellant does not
dispute the Examiner’s claim interpretation in the Briefs. App. Br. 5.
3
Appeal 2017-004765
Application 14/017,695
assistance,” as recited in Appellant’s independent claim 1, and similarly
recited in independent claims 8 and 15. App. Br. 6—10; Reply Br. 2-4.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites
the claimed assistance request is used to allow a user providing
assistance to modify an original video stream rerouted to the
user providing assistance and then transmit the rerouted video
stream back to the user that requested assistance with
modification to the video stream made by the user providing
assistance.
App. Br. 7. Claim 1 also recites “rerout[ing] an original rendered video
stream associated with said user requesting assistance to a user providing
assistance,” and a “transmitter . . . operable to transmit a modified rendered
video stream toward said user requesting assistance that has been modified
based on said at least one modification” “receive [d] from said user providing
assistance,” the “at least one modification regarding said original rendered
video stream.”
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds (1) Domke suggests the
claim limitation of “rerout[ing] an original rendered video stream associated
with said user requesting assistance to a user providing assistance,” and (2)
Gage teaches the claim limitation reciting a “transmitter . . . operable to
transmit a modified rendered video stream toward said user requesting
assistance that has been modified based on said at least one modification”
that is a “modification regarding said original rendered video stream.” Final
Act. 7—10 (citing Gage Tflf 27—28, 49—50, 54, 58—59, Figs. 1—2; Domke
4
Appeal 2017-004765
Application 14/017,695
56—57, 98, 100, 105, Figs. 1, 6); Ans. 19—21 (citing Domke H 54—55,
109, Figs. 7—8 and 11).
Appellant contends the combination of Gage with Domke does not
“cause an original video stream to be rerouted to a user providing
assistance” and “further,. . . cause a modified video stream to be rerouted
back to the user requesting assistance,” as required by claim 1. App. Br. 7—
8; Reply Br. 2. We agree. Specifically, we agree the cited parts of Gage and
Domke fail to teach or suggest causing a modified video stream to be
rerouted back to the user requesting assistance, as required by claim 1;
rather, Gage and Domke route an original video stream associated with a
first user (a “user requesting assistance”) to another user, but Gage and
Domke do not operate to transmit a modified video stream of the original
video stream back to the first user. App. Br. 7—9; Reply Br. 3.
In particular, Gage’s distributed video conferencing system routes a
video stream generated by a video conferencing device (endpoint) of a first
user/conference participant, to endpoints of other conference participants.
See Gage 3, 54, Abstract. Gage discloses the first user’s video stream
may be modified by a conference moderator by “muting the endpoint,
changing the video quality, displaying data (e.g., displaying a document to
other participants),” and “convert[ing] the poor quality video to an audio
only data stream before sending the audio only data stream to [an]
endpoint.” See Gage 49, 54. Gage does not disclose, however, that the
first user’s modified video stream is transmitted back to the first user, as
claim 1 requires. Instead, Gage teaches that the modified video stream of
the first user is routed to the endpoints of other users/conference
participants. See Gage 49, 54; App. Br. 7.
5
Appeal 2017-004765
Application 14/017,695
Domke does not remedy the deficiencies of Gage. Domke’s
collaboration system shares video streams of testing data with multiple
inspectors/operators of non-destructive testing (NDT) devices. Reply Br. 2
(citing Domke 11); see also Domke Tflf 37, 56—57, 96, 98, 100, 105, 109.
Domke’s system does not, however, cause a modified video stream to be
routed back to an originating device or inspector; rather, Domke merely
teaches “screen sharing” and “sharing of video streams, audio streams, data
streams, chat streams, screen images” between local and remote inspectors
“to add more context to the screen sharing” and “help provide more context
to the real-time data sharing session for both the NDT inspector 276 and the
NDT inspector 278.” See Domke 100; see also Domke 96—97, 105,
109; Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner also has not shown that the additional teachings of
Covell make up for the above-noted deficiencies of Gage and Domke. In
particular, Covell discloses a media stream generating system 120 generates
media streams and “may modify one or more of the media streams before
sending it to thin device 110” in a format that is customized for limited
capabilities of the thin device. See Covell 125; see also Covell 4, 35.
Covell does not disclose, however, that the modified media stream sent by
the media stream generating system is a modified video stream of an original
video stream associated with the thin device, or that the modified media
stream is a stream being rerouted back to the thin device. That is, Covell
does not cause a modified video stream to be transmitted back to a user (thin
device), as required by claim 1.
Thus, the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support
the Examiner’s findings that the combination of Gage, Domke, and Covell
6
Appeal 2017-004765
Application 14/017,695
teaches or suggests a transmitter operable to transmit a modified rendered
video stream back to a user requesting assistance, as recited in claim 1. The
Examiner also has not shown that the additional teachings of Joy and
Zalewski make up for the above-noted deficiencies of Gage, Domke, and
Covell.
Because the Examiner has not shown the combination of Gage,
Domke, and Covell teaches or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1,
and independent claims 8 and 15, which also recite the disputed
“modification” limitation. See claim 8 (“transmitting a modified rendered
video stream toward said user requesting assistance that has been modified
based on said at least one modification,” the “at least one modification
regarding said original rendered video stream” that is “associated with said
user requesting assistance”), claim 15 (“transmitter . . . operable to transmit
a modified rendered video stream toward said user requesting assistance that
has been modified based on said at least one modification,” the “at least one
modification regarding said original rendered video stream” that is
“associated with said user requesting assistance”). App. Br. 14—16 (Claims
App’x). We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 2—7, 9—14, and 16—20.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellant has demonstrated the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
7
Appeal 2017-004765
Application 14/017,695
DECISION
As such, we REVERSE the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—20.
REVERSED
8