Ex Parte Ghaskadvi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 16, 2016

11848293 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 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.
11/848,293 08/31/2007 Vijay S. Ghaskadvi 058083-0394791 (B573) 3560
72058 7590 12/20/2016
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
EXAMINER
LO, ANN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2016 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):
ipefiling @ kilpatrickstockton .com
jlhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VIJAY S. GHASKADVI
Appeal 2016-000857
Application 11/848,293
Technology Center 2100
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and NATHAN A.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1,2,6—11, 15, 25, 29, 31, and 32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2016-000857
Application 11/848,293
BACKGROUND
Claim 1 recites the following:
1. A method comprising:
subscribing to media content, the media content
comprising a plurality of segments organized according to a
media orchestration descriptor, the media orchestration
descriptor identifying the plurality of segments of the media
content and indicating at least one relationship among the
plurality of segments to define a presentation of the plurality of
segments during playback of the media content;
in response to subscribing, initiating playback of the media
content in conjunction with downloading a first subset of the
plurality of segments to a buffer;
determining a total playback time of the first subset of
segments downloaded to the buffer that has not been played
back, wherein the total playback time is determined by:
identifying a first playback duration of a first segment of
the first subset of segments and a second playback duration of a
second segment of the first subset of segments, and
selecting the first duration as the total playback time based
on the first duration exceeding the second duration and the first
segment and the second segment being organized for parallel
execution according to the media descriptor;
halting the playback in response to determining that the
total playback time is less than a predetermined necessary
amount of playback time;
downloading a second subset of the plurality of segments
to the buffer; and
resuming the playback in response to determining that the
total playback time of the first subset of segments and the second
subset of segments downloaded to the buffer is at least equal to
a predetermined sufficient amount of playback time, wherein the
predetermined sufficient amount of playback time is defined to
be greater than the necessary amount of playback time.
App. Br. 31—32.
2
Appeal 2016-000857
Application 11/848,293
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15, 25, 31, and 32
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Price1 and Ackley2. Final
Act. 7-15.
The Examiner rejected claims 8, 9, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Price, Ackley, and Krikorian3. Id. at 15—18.4
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the Examiner’s combination of Price and Ackley
as set forth in the Final Rejection fails to teach or suggest “halting the
playback in response to determining that the total playback time is less than
a predetermined necessary amount of playback time” as recited in claim 1.
See App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 6, 9. Appellant argues Price’s disclosure of
“halting playback if no media data is available for playback does not teach
or suggest halting playback if a total playback time of un-played,
downloaded content has fallen below a necessary amount of playback time,
as required by claim 1.” App. Br. 16 (emphasis omitted); see Reply Br. 6.
Appellant further argues “Price’s disclosure of conditions under which a
server will send more media data to a media player fails to teach or suggest
any conditions required for the media player to halt playback media data.”
Reply Br. 9 (emphasis omitted). Lastly, Appellant argues that Ackley does
not cure the purported deficiencies of Price. See App. Br. 16. According to
Appellant, Ackley “merely discloses that streams of media data that are
1 Price (US 2004/0249969 Al; published Dec. 9, 2004).
2 Ackley et al. (US 2005/0019015 Al; published Jan. 27, 2015).
3 Krikorian et al. (US 2006/0095472 Al; published May 4, 2006).
4 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claim 8, 9, 17, 18, and 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Ans. 9-10.
3
Appeal 2016-000857
Application 11/848,293
streamed to a video player may be logically multiplexed data feeds . . . [and]
includes no disclosure of stopping and starting playback based on an amount
of data stored in a buffer.” App. Br. 16.
We find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. Claim 1 refers to the
“total playback time” of the “halting” limitation as follows: “selecting the
first duration [of a first segment of a first subset of segments downloaded to
the buffer that has not been played back] as the total playback time based
on the first duration exceeding the second duration [of a second segment
of the first subset of segments].” App. Br. 31 (emphasis added). Here,
consistent with the written description, we interpret the term “duration” as
having a value greater than or equal to zero. See Spec. 10:1—13 (disclosing
selecting a duration of the total playback time as the longest one of a
plurality of positive time values), 11:29-12:1 (disclosing storing the selected
duration and other durations of media segments in the buffer). Moreover,
because the first duration must exceed the second duration, we interpret “the
first duration” as having a value greater than zero. See Spec. 10:1—13,
11:29-12:1. As a result, we also interpret the “total playback time” as
having a value greater than zero.
Applying this interpretation of “total playback time,” we agree with
Appellant that Price does not teach or suggest the “halting” limitation of
claim 1. See App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 6, 9. The Examiner found Price
discloses stopping, or “halting” the media player’s audio or video when the
buffer is empty, i.e., when the total playback time is zero. See Final Act. 8
(citing Price 111); Ans. 3^4. But this disclosure of Price does not teach or
suggest the “halting” limitation of claim 1 because, as discussed above,
claim 1 requires the “the total playback time” of the “halting” limitation to
4
Appeal 2016-000857
Application 11/848,293
be greater than zero, not zero. See App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 6. The Examiner
further found Price discloses unplayed content in the buffer because Price’s
system rebuilds the buffer when it begins to deplete. See Ans. 4 (citing Price
124). But, as Appellant contends, this disclosure of Price does not teach or
suggest “halting” playback of media data while the buffer is being rebuilt.
See Reply Br. 9. In fact, to the contrary, Price’s system “provides for
recovery of lost data elements and the restoration of the user’s buffer, even
while the user media player continues to play.'1'’ Price 124 (emphasis
added). In other words, Price does not halt, but rather continues to play
media content when the buffer is being rebuilt. See id. We also agree with
Appellant that the cited disclosures of Ackley do not cure the deficiencies of
Price. See App. Br. 16; Final Act. 10-12 (citing Ackley 14, 38, 47, 48).
Nor has the Examiner articulated an adequate rationale to fill the gaps in the
cited prior art. See Ans. 2—9; Final Act. 7—12.
In view of the foregoing, Appellant has persuaded us the Examiner
erred in concluding the combination of Price and Ackley teaches or suggests
the “halting” limitation of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, nor do we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claims 10 and 31, and dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 11, 15, 25,
and 32, each of which recites a similar limitation. See App. Br. 32—38. For
similar reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 8, 9, and 29, which include the same deficiency that has
not been cured by Krikorian. See App. Br. 33, 36; Ans. 2—9; Final Act. 15—
18.
5
Appeal 2016-000857
Application 11/848,293
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejections of claims 1, 2, 6—11,
15, 25, 29, 31, and 32.
REVERSED
6