Ex Parte Hayhurst

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 5, 2012

10491511 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2012)

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.
10/491,511 04/01/2004 William Hayhurst 1270-002-PWH 5967
60597 7590 12/06/2012
HANCOCK HUGHEY LLP
P.O. BOX 6553
PORTLAND, OR 97228
EXAMINER
HICKS, CHARLES N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/06/2012 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 WILLIAM HYHURST
____________

Appeal 2010-007527
Application 10/491,511
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, ANDREW CALDWELL, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-007527
Application 10/491,511

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-13, 16, 17, and 19-21, which are all the claims
remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
Claim 1. A method of delivering a displayable media file that is
requested by a requesting subscriber of a network of subscribers, comprising
the steps of:

segmenting the complete media file into a plurality of segments, each
segment comprising a discrete sequence of the media file such that the
assembly of all of the plurality of segments is required for displaying the
complete media file;

distributing the segments of the media file among the network of
subscribers for storage on respective units of the subscribers; and

responding to a request from the requesting subscriber by directing to
that requesting subscriber all of the plurality of segments of the media file.

Prior Art
Bushmitch US 5,928,331 July 27, 1999
He US 6,557,042 B1 Apr. 29, 2003
Novak US 2003/0097655 A1 May 22, 2003

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-13, 16, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Bushmitch and Novak.
Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bushmitch, Novak, and He.
Appeal 2010-007527
Application 10/491,511

3
ANALYSIS
Section 103 rejection of claims 1--13
Claim 1 recites “assembly of all of the plurality of segments is
required for displaying the complete media file.” Appellant contends that
Bushmitch teaches away from requiring all segments for displaying the
complete media file, because the media stream taught by Bushmitch can be
reassembled from fewer than all substream components. App. Br. 6-8;
Reply Br. 4.
We disagree with Appellant. We adopt as our own the findings of fact
made by the Examiner in the Final Rejection and the Examiner’s Answer.
We agree with the conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons
given by the Examiner.
In addition to the Examiner’s findings, we cumulatively find that
Appellant’s contention is based on the premise that the system of Bushmitch
can only transmit one media stream to a client. However, Appellant has not
pointed to anything in Bushmitch that disparages or discourages dividing a
file into multiple streams, then transmitting each of the multiple streams to a
client using the non-hierarchical coding scheme. Therefore, Bushmitch does
not teach away from requiring all segments for displaying the complete file.
In fact, Bushmitch teaches transmitting more than one media stream
to a client. For example, the media stream X shown in Figure 2 of
Bushmitch can be different than media stream Y. See col. 4, ll. 1-10. If
each media stream X and Y represents a different segment of digital content,
or a “complete media file,” as taught by Novak, then transmitting media
stream X to multimedia client 16, followed by transmitting media stream Y
to multimedia client 16, teaches “the assembly of all of the plurality of
Appeal 2010-007527
Application 10/491,511

4
segments is required for displaying the complete media file” within the
meaning of claim 1.
Appellant contends that Novak teaches segments of streaming data
emanating from a single source. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3-4. The Examiner
finds that paragraph 35 of Novak (Ans. 10) and Figure 2 of Bushmitch (Ans.
3-4) teach data emanating from more than one content source. Appellant’s
contention that streaming segments of a data file from multiple sources was
beyond the level of ordinary skill at the time of invention is inconsistent with
paragraph 35 of Novak and Figure 2 of Bushmitch.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant
has not provided arguments for separate patentability of claims 2-13 which
fall with claim 1.

Section 103 rejection of claims 16, 17, and 19
Claim 16 recites “each segment … having a duration that is
substantially shorter than the media file duration.” Appellant contends that
the media file segments of Bushmitch are not temporally segmented.
According to Appellant, the duration of each substream of Bushmitch
matches the duration of the original data stream. App. Br. 8. Appellant
concludes that Bushmitch teaches away from segments that each have
relatively short durations. App. Br. 9.
The Examiner relies on Bushmitch to teach distributing segments of a
media file among a network of subscribers for storage. Ans. 7. The
Examiner relies on Novak to teach “each segment comprising a sequence of
the media file and having a duration that is substantially shorter than the
media file duration.” Ans. 7.
Appeal 2010-007527
Application 10/491,511

5
Bushmitch teaches a coding scheme that allows a single component to
reconstruct a version of the media stream X as shown in Figure 2, and also
teaches that another media stream Y can also be sent using the coding
scheme. See col. 4, ll. 1-10. If each media stream X and Y shown in Figure
2 of Bushmitch represents a different sequence of digital content as taught
by Novak, then transmitting media stream X to multimedia client 16,
followed by transmitting media stream Y to multimedia client 16, teaches
“each segment comprising a sequence of the media file and having a
duration that is substantially shorter than the media file duration” within the
meaning of claim 16.
Appellant’s arguments attack Bushmitch individually, but do not
sufficiently address the combined teachings of Bushmitch and Novak. One
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where
the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Circ. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981). Appellant has failed to provide persuasive evidence or
argument to show that the combination of Bushmitch and Novak does not
teach “each segment … having a duration that is substantially shorter than
the media file duration.”
We sustain the rejection of claims 16, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.

Section 103 rejection of claims 20 and 21
Claim 20 recites “the media file is a complete movie having a
chronological length and wherein the segmenting step includes segmenting
the movie in a manner such that the discrete sequences each represent a
Appeal 2010-007527
Application 10/491,511

6
chronologically ordered portion of the movie that is less than the length.”
Appellant contends that the He reference is not concerned with delivering
and displaying an entire media file, such as a movie. App. Br. 9-10. The
Examiner relies on the He reference to teach segmenting a movie in
chronological order and assembling segments in chronological order. Ans.
8-9.
Novak teaches a movie, such as “Titanic” shown in Figure 8, that is
segmented as shown in Figure 4. The He reference teaches presenting
segments to a user in chronological order. Col. 10, ll. 17-18. Assembling
the segments of a movie as taught by Novak in chronological order as taught
by He is the combination of familiar elements according to known methods
that does no more that yield the predictable result of displaying a movie to a
user as taught by Novak.
We sustain the rejection of claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-13, 16, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Bushmitch and Novak is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bushmitch, Novak, and He 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED
kis