Ex Parte Goodwill et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2013

11556898 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2013)

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.
11/556,898 11/06/2006 Dominic Goodwill 7000-530 9544
27820 7590 08/01/2013
WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C.
100 REGENCY FOREST DRIVE
SUITE 160
CARY, NC 27518
EXAMINER
ALCON, FERNANDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2013 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 DOMINIC GOODWILL,
ANOOP NANNRA, and IMED FRIGUI
____________

Appeal 2011-012215
Application 11/556,898
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JOHN A. EVANS,
and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.

WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-27, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2011-012215
Application 11/556,898

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ “invention relates to delivering streaming content, and in
particular to facilitating time-shifted delivery of such content.” Spec.
¶ 0001. Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
receiving unshifted content from a content source, the
unshifted content being streaming media content delivered over
a packet network;
generating a plurality of time-shifted content blocks from
the unshifted content, wherein content for each of the plurality
of time-shifted content blocks is essentially the unshifted
content; and
delivering each of the plurality of time-shifted content
blocks at different times according to a defined delivery
schedule, wherein the unshifted content is effectively time-
shifted for delivery to subscribers and where the plurality of
time-shifted content blocks is delivered toward a multicast
server, which delivers a given one of the plurality of time-
shifted content blocks to the subscribers in a multicast session,
where a subscriber joins the multicast session in progress due to
the time-shifted delivery.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Ullrich US 5,583,937 Dec. 10, 1996
Mihara US 5,926,206 July 20, 1999
Okayama US 2002/0053090 A1 May 2, 2002
Okura US 6,487,722 B1 Nov. 26, 2002
Cheung
1
US 2003/0074667 A1 Apr. 17, 2003

1
Cheung is a published US patent application. The record also cites to the
corresponding issued US patent, US 7,174,384 B2, issued February 6, 2007.
Where a distinction is made herein, we refer to the published patent
application as “Cheung publ.” and the issued patent as “Cheung pat.”
Appeal 2011-012215
Application 11/556,898

3
Stewart US 2003/0140348 A1 July 24, 2003
Rowe US 6,792,615 B1 Sept.14, 2004
Fritsch US 6,973,667 B2 Dec. 6, 2005
Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 11-17, 21, 22, and 25-27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Stewart, Fritsch, Cheung, and
Mihara. Ans. 3-11.
Claims 4 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stewart, Fritsch, Cheung, Mihara, and Okayama. Ans.
11-12.
Claims 5 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stewart, Fritsch, Cheung, Mihara, and Ullrich. Ans. 12-
13.
Claims 6 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stewart, Fritsch, Cheung, Mihara, and Okura. Ans. 13-15.
Claims 9, 10, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stewart, Fritsch, Cheung, Mihara, and Rowe. Ans. 15-17.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs (“App.
Br.” filed Feb. 16, 2010; “Reply Br.” filed July 23, 2010) and the Answer
(“Ans.” mailed May 24, 2010) for the respective positions of Appellants and
the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the
Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
Appellants argue claims 1 and 15 together (see generally App. Br. 8-
9) and argue claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 11-14, 16, 17, 21, 22, and 25-27, based on
Appeal 2011-012215
Application 11/556,898

4
their dependency from claim 1 or 15 (App. Br. 9), but do not otherwise
argue claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 11-14, 16, 17, 21, 22, and 25-27 separately with
particularity. Similarly, Appellants argue claims 4-6, 9, 10, 18-20, 23, and
24 based on their dependency from claim 1 or 15, with further arguments
that additional art cited against the claims does not cure the deficiencies
argued by Appellants with regard to claims 1 and 15. App. Br. 10-11.
Appellants do not otherwise argue claims 4-6, 9, 10, 18-20, 23, and 24
separately with particularity. Accordingly, we will discuss the appeal by
reference to claim 1.
The issue presented by Appellants’ contentions is as follows: Does
the combination of Stewart, Fritsch, Cheung, and Mihara, and more
particularly does Cheung, teach or suggest that “[a] plurality of time-shifted
content blocks is delivered toward a multicast server” (emphasis added), as
recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that “Cheung [publ.] discloses delivering time-
shifted content blocks toward a multicast media server (staggered multicast
streams, i.e. time-shifted content blocks, are delivered to a distribution
head-end, i.e. multicast media server; paragraphs [0152-0153]; Fig 11,
Fig 3).” Ans. 5 (brackets in original). The Examiner maps the recited
“multicast server” to Cheung’s “distribution head end[s].” Ans. 21 (citing
Cheung publ., Fig. 11). The Examiner implicitly maps the recited “plurality
of time shifted content blocks” to the output from Cheung’s “RF channel
mixer,” which is connected to the “distribution head end[s]” by Cheung’s
“distribution media.” See Cheung publ., Fig. 11.
Appeal 2011-012215
Application 11/556,898

5
Appellants contend that the Examiner mischaracterizes the Cheung
reference. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3, 4. Appellants explain as follows:
[W]hile the cited portion of Cheung [(Cheung pat., col. 19, ll.
29-67; corresponding to Cheung publ., ¶¶ [0152]-[0153])] does
disclose converting analog signals into digital streams and then
placing the digital streams into a single RF channel at a head
end, contrary to what is asserted by the Patent Office, the cited
portion of Cheung does not disclose that the digital streams,
which are delivered to the distribution head ends, are staggered.
[See Cheung pat., col. 19, ll. 38-48.] In fact, the teachings of
Cheung disclose the exact opposite. More specifically, Cheung
discloses that the distribution head ends are anti-latency
devices, which generate anti-latency data streams. [See Cheung
pat., col. 7, ll. 3-5; col. 19, ll. 36-37]. According to Cheung,
anti-latency data streams are staggered data streams. [See
Cheung pat., Abstract; col. 20, ll. 40-41]. Thus, Cheung
discloses that the distribution head ends, which the Patent
Office has equated to be the multicast server recited in the
claims, staggers data streams, as opposed to receiving staggered
data streams.
App. Br. 9 (footnotes omitted); see also Reply Br. 3-4.
We agree with the Examiner for the reasons stated by the Examiner.
See Ans. 18-21. Cheung teaches that:
[a]t the head end[, which may be called an anti-latency device,]
instead of sending analog signals in each channel, digital
signals such as QAM are transmitted. Typically, one can put in
[sic] 30-40 Mb/s into an RF channel. Assuming a 2-hour
content, one can first use MPEG-4 or other compression
algorithms to convert the analog signal into a digital stream
with a bit rate of roughly 1 Mb/s. Using the Fibonacci dual-
streaming (Configuration 3) or the optimal harmonic multi-
streaming IVOD concept (Configuration 4), one can place 30 to
40 streams of the IVOD streams into a single RF channe1.
Cheung publ., ¶ [0152]. Thus, Cheung teaches that conversion of the
analog video signals to a compressed MPEG-4 digital streams and multi-
Appeal 2011-012215
Application 11/556,898

6
streaming of those streams occurs at the “head end.” Appellants concede
that the “head end” described by Cheung’s paragraph [0152] is an “anti-
latency device” that generates anti-latency, i.e., staggered, data streams.
App. Br. 9. It is Appellants’ position, however, that the “head end”
described in Cheung’s paragraph [0152] is a “distribution head end”
illustrated in Cheung’s Figure 11. See Reply Br. 4.
Turning to Cheung’s Figure 11 (publ.), Cheung illustrates the
conversion, compression, and multi-streaming functions as occurring in the
boxes labeled “MPEG-4 encoding + multi-streaming processing” (emphasis
added) which receive the “channel 1” through “channel n” “video signals”
and output signals to the “RF channel mixer.” Cheung publ., Fig. 11. The
“RF channel mixer,” in turn, is connected to the plurality of “distribution
head end[s].” Id. Because Cheung describes the multi-streaming processing
as occurring at the “head end” (Cheung publ., ¶ [0152]) and because Cheung
illustrates the multi-streaming processing as occurring separate from and
prior to the “distribution head end[s]” (see Cheung publ., Fig. 11) we find
that the “head end” discussed in Cheung’s paragraph [0152] (publ.) is not a
“distribution head end” illustrated in Cheung’s Figure 11 (publ.), but rather a
separate head end encompassing at least the plurality of boxes labeled
“MPEG-4 encoding + multi-streaming processing.” Cf. Ans. 20.
We further find that Cheung teaches that the “head end” of Cheung’s
paragraph [0152] (publ.) delivers a plurality of time-shifted content blocks
over Cheung’s “distribution media” (Cheung publ., Fig. 11) to each of
Cheung’s “distribution head end[s]” (id.), which the Examiner maps to the
“multicast server” recited in claim 1. Appellants have not persuasively
argued that the mapping of Cheung’s “distribution head end[s]” to the
Appeal 2011-012215
Application 11/556,898

7
recited “multicast server” is error. See generally App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 2-
4.
Further, we find no inconsistency between our understanding of the
teachings of Cheung’s paragraph [0152] (publ.) and Figure 11 (publ.) and
the teachings of Cheung’s Figure 3 (publ.) and associated text. One of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the distribution network
illustrated in Cheung’s Figure 3 (publ.) may include “distribution head
end[s],” i.e., the recited “multicast servers,” as illustrated in Cheung’s Figure
11 (publ.). See Ans. 21.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of (1) claim 1; (2) independent claim
15, argued together with claim 1; and (3) claims 2-14 and 16-27 which
depend from claims 1 and 15, respectively, and were not separately argued
with particularity.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-27 is affirmed. More
particularly:
the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3, 7, 8, 11-17,
21, 22, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Stewart, Fritsch, Cheung, and Mihara is affirmed;
the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 4 and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Stewart, Fritsch, Cheung,
Mihara, and Okayama is affirmed;
Appeal 2011-012215
Application 11/556,898

8
the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 5 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Stewart, Fritsch, Cheung,
Mihara, and Ullrich is affirmed;
the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 6 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Stewart, Fritsch, Cheung,
Mihara, and Okura is affirmed; and
the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 9, 10, 23, and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Stewart, Fritsch,
Cheung, Mihara, and Rowe is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

kis