Ex Parte HAO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 6, 2017

12958786 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 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.
12/958,786 12/02/2010 Jack Jianxiu HAO 20100574 3784
25537 7590
VERIZON
PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
EXAMINER
BLACK, LINH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2017 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):
patents @ verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JACK JIANXIU HAO, MARTIN BUSSE,
JOHN F. GALLAGHER, SHADMAN ZAFAR, DAHAI REN, and
ANDRIEN JOHN WANG
Appeal 2016-005637
Application 12/958,7861
Technology Center 2100
Before JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, JOYCE CRAIG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-8, 15-19, and 26-29, which are all the claims pending
in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Verizon
Communications Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-005637
Application 12/958,786
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ application relates to recommending adjustments to
network parameters based on event information received from user devices.
Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as
follows:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, by a computing device and from a plurality of
user devices, event information associated with the performance
of events, by the plurality of user devices, related to usage of
content stored in a content delivery network, wherein the event
information includes:
one or more actions performed with the plurality of
user devices,
user information associated with users of the
plurality of user devices,
content information associated with usage of
content stored in the content delivery network by the
users of the plurality of user devices, and
one or more attributes associated with the plurality
of user devices;
storing, by the computing device, the event information
in a database;
analyzing, by the computing device, one or more portions
of the event information stored in the database; and
recommending, by the computing device and based on
the analyzed event information, one or more adjustments to one
or more parameters associated with the content delivery
network that delivers content to the plurality of user devices,
wherein recommending the one or more adjustments to the one
or more parameters associated with the content delivery
network comprises recommending at least one of:
increasing a bandwidth of the content delivery
2
Appeal 2016-005637
Application 12/958,786
network,
adding network resources to the content delivery
network,
shifting content to an edge storage device of the
content delivery network that is nearest at least one of the
plurality of user devices, or
streaming or downloading content from a content
provider of the content delivery network using different
bit rates and adjusting a bandwidth of the content
delivery network.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-8 and 15-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Soroca et al. (US 2010/0094878 Al; Apr. 15, 2010) and
Seckin (US 2004/0240390 Al; Dec. 2, 2004). Final Act. 2-8.
Claims 26 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Soroca, Seckin, and Taylor et al. (US 2007/0121509 Al;
May 31, 2007). Final Act. 8-9.
Claims 27 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Soroca, Seckin, and Davis et al. (US 2008/0201273 Al;
Aug. 21, 2008). Final Act. 9-10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in consideration of
Appellants’ contentions and the evidence of record. Appellants persuade us
the Examiner fails to establish the claims are unpatentable over the cited
prior art.
The Examiner finds the cited combination of Soroca and Seckin
teaches or suggests “recommending, by the computing device and based on
the analyzed event information, one or more adjustments to one or more
3
Appeal 2016-005637
Application 12/958,786
parameters associated with the content delivery network that delivers content
to the plurality of user devices,” recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4-5. In
particular, the Examiner finds Soroca teaches making recommendations
based, in part, on information relating to the mobile communication facility
102, such as subscriber characteristics and carrier business rules. Ans. 4
(citing Soroca ^ 454). The Examiner finds Soroca teaches determining
adjustments for content delivered to mobile communication facilities. Id.
(citing Soroca ^ 423). The Examiner further finds one or more parameters
are used to recommend or adjust content by the service provider in order to
deliver appropriate and relevant content to the mobile communication
facility. Id.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred because Soroca does not teach
“recommending one or more adjustments to one or more parameters
associated with the content delivery network.” App. Br. 9-10. Specifically,
Appellants argue Soroca teaches various parameters may be used to
determine the relevance of mobile content. App. Br. 10. In other words,
Appellants argue Soroca teaches recommending content that may be relevant
to a user, but does not teach recommending adjustments to parameters
associated with the content delivery network.
Appellants have persuaded us of Examiner error. Although Soroca
teaches making recommendations based on parameters including analyzed
event information, Soroca does not teach or suggest recommending
adjustments to one or more parameters associated with the content delivery
network. Instead, the cited portions of Soroca teach recommending content
to a user. See Soroca 400^101, 423, 454, 1511. Accordingly, we agree
with Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
4
Appeal 2016-005637
Application 12/958,786
Soroca and Seckin teaches or suggests the “recommending” limitation. On
this record, we, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or
independent claim 15, which recites similar limitations. We also do not
sustain the rejection of claims 2-8, 16-19, and 26-29, which depend from
claims 1 and 15.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-8, 15-19,
and 26-29.
REVERSED
5