Ex Parte Ganesan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 27, 2014

11076262 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/076,262 03/09/2005 Prasanna Ganesan WLMT-06400 6256
34051 7590 05/28/2014
Stevens Law Group
1754 Technology Drive
Suite #226
San Jose, CA 95110
EXAMINER
HICKS, CHARLES N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/28/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PRASANNA GANESAN, SHAHRIYAR MATLOUB,
TONY MIRANZ and ALAIN ROSSMANN
___________

Appeal 2012-000427
Application 11/076,262
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR. and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-000427
Application 11/076,262
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 10-12,
23, 25 and 27-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 5. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We reverse.

Introduction
The invention is directed to “techniques for providing media services
over data networks.” Specification ¶ 0012.

Representative Claim (Emphasis Added)
1. A method for enabling instant playback of media, the method
being implemented by one or more processors and comprising:

generating a data package that corresponds to a first media
content, the data package including (i) a header segment
corresponding to a beginning portion of the first media content, and
(ii) a plurality of tail segments corresponding to the remaining portion
of the first media content;

transmitting at least portions of the data package to a plurality
of devices, such that the header segment is transmitted to each of the
devices and each of the plurality of tail segments is transmitted to at
least one of the devices;

enabling any of the plurality of devices to initiate instant
playback of the first media content in response to a user request for
playback of the first media content, wherein enabling any of the
plurality of devices includes enabling each device to: (i) initiate
playback of the first media content using the header segment, as
previously received by that device, before or while receiving one or
more tail segments from another device, and (ii) continue playback of
the first media content using each of the plurality of tail segments,
Appeal 2012-000427
Application 11/076,262
3
including the one or more tail segments received from another device
in the plurality of devices.

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 3-6, 23, 25 and 28-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Bushmitch (US Patent Number
5,928,331; issued July 27, 1999) and Carden (US Patent Number 6,996,627
B1; issued February 7, 2006). Answer 4-9.
Claims 7, 10-12, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bushmitch, Carden and Barrett (US Patent Number
6,412,112 B1; issued June 25, 2002). Answer 9-10.

ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 29, 2011), the Answer (mailed
August 23, 2011) and the Reply Brief (filed September 19, 2011) for the
respective details. We have considered in this decision only those
arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments
which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants contend Bushmitch fails to “teach a header segment that
corresponds to a beginning portion of a first media content.” Appeal Brief
5. The Examiner finds Bushmitch uses a well-known standardized protocol
for delivering video and audio over network – RTP (real time protocol).
Answer 10-11. The Examiner also finds headers are incorporated within the
RTP protocol. Id. at 11.
Appeal 2012-000427
Application 11/076,262
4
Appellants further contend Bushmitch fails to disclose initiating
“playback of the first media content by using the header segment before or
while receiving the other segments.” Appeal Brief 6. The Examiner finds
Bushmitch discloses using the header to initiate playback. Answer 5 (citing
Bushmitch Figures 1-5, column 4, lines 1-42). We do not agree with the
Examiner’s findings. The above cited portions of Bushmitch are silent about
utilizing the header of the media to initiate playback as claimed by
Appellants. Further, the Examiner does not address Appellants’ arguments
about Bushmitch’s failure to employ the header to initiate playback in the
Response to Argument section of the Answer. Answer 10-11.
Appellants argue Carden fails to address the noted deficiency of
Bushmitch. Appeal Brief 7-8. We agree. Consequently, in view of the
Examiner’s failure to clarify why and where Bushmitch discloses a header
that initiates playback in the manner claimed by Appellants, we find
Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1. Additionally, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 23, commensurate in scope with
claim 1, for the reasons articulated above. We also do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claims 3-7, 10-12, 25 and
27-30 since they stand and fall with the independent claims.

DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 1, 3-7, 10-12, 23,
25 and 27-30 are reversed.

Appeal 2012-000427
Application 11/076,262
5
REVERSED

tj