Ex Parte HOFFERT et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2018

14165513 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/165,513 01/27/2014
24341 7590 08/27/2018
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (PA)
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eric HOFFERT
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
020143-5041-US 9487
EXAMINER
SATTI,HUMAMM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/27/2018 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):
padocketingdepartment@morganlewis.com
vskliba@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC HOFFERT, MIKE BERKLEY, KEVIN FAABORG
and GUSTAV SODERSTROM 1
Appeal2018-000654
Application 14/165,513
Technology Center 2400
Before: ROBERT E. NAPPI, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
JOYCE CRAIG Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 9 and 12 through 18.
We REVERSE.
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a device to present media content and
switch between media streams. See Abstract and paragraphs 3-5 of
Appellants' Specification.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Spotify AB. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal2018-000654
Application 14/165,513
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A method, comprising:
at an electronic device with one or more processors, memory,
and a display:
receiving a first request to display a first video stream on the
display, wherein the first video stream corresponds to a
first channel in a predetermined sequence of channels;
in response to receiving the first request:
starting to download the first video stream from a
content delivery server for the first video stream;
while downloading the first video stream and
before displaying a second video stream that corresponds
to a second channel that is adjacent to the first channel in
the predetermined sequence of channels:
displaying the first video stream on the display;
periodically preloading, using a connection over
the Internet to a content delivery server for the second
video stream, portions of the second video stream from
the content delivery server for the second video stream,
wherein periodically preloading portions of the second
video stream comprises, while maintaining the
connection over the Internet to the content delivery
server for the second video stream, stopping delivery of
the second video stream to the electronic device from the
content delivery server for the second video stream after
downloading a portion and, at a later time, refreshing the
downloading; and
periodically storing the preloaded portions of the
second video stream in the memory;
while displaying the first video stream on the display,
receiving a second request to display the second video stream
on the display, the receiving including detecting a swiping
gesture corresponding to movement in a respective direction;
and
2
Appeal2018-000654
Application 14/165,513
in response to receiving the second request, sliding a first
video tile that includes content from the first video stream off of
a first edge of the display while sliding a second video tile that
includes content from the second video stream onto the display
from a second edge of the display, wherein at least a portion of
the first video tile and at least a portion of the second video tile
are displayed on the display simultaneously, and wherein the at
least a portion of the second video tile displayed on the display
includes a preloaded portion of the second video stream stored
in the memory.
App. Br. 21-22 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 4, 16, 17 and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Bratton et al. (US 8,340,654 B2,
issued December 25, 2012), Gupta et al. (2010/0066918 Al, published
March 18, 2010) and Connolly et al. (US 8,214,619 Bl, issued July 3, 2012).
Final Act 3---6. 2
The Examiner has rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Bratton, Gupta, Connolly and Potrebic et al. (US
6,804,824 Bl, issued October 12, 2004). Final Act 7.
The Examiner has rejected claims 9 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Bratton, Gupta, Connolly and Shirron et al. (US
2012/0170903 Al, published July 12, 2012). Final Act 7-8.
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed May 3, 2017
(hereinafter "App. Br."), Reply Brief, filed October 24, 2017 (hereinafter
"Reply Br."), and the Examiner's Answer, mailed on August 24, 2017
(hereinafter "Answer").
3
Appeal2018-000654
Application 14/165,513
The Examiner has rejected claims 6 through 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Bratton, Gupta, Connolly and Tran et al. (US
2014/0098140 Al, published April 10, 2014). Final Act 9-10.
The Examiner has rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Bratton, Gupta, Connolly and Nakai (US 2012/0257120
Al, published October 11, 2012). Final Act 10-11.
The Examiner has rejected claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Bratton, Gupta, Connolly and Shirron and
Sciammarella et al. (US 6,384,869 Bl, issued May 7, 2002). Final Act 11-
13.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments. We agree with Appellants'
contention that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 1 7 and
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Bratton, Gupta and Connolly teaches while downloading a first video
stream, and before displaying a second video stream, periodically
downloading, over an internet connection, portions of the second video
stream while maintaining the internet connection, stopping delivery of the
second video stream and after a time refreshing the downloading as recited
in each of the independent claims. Appeal Brief 14--18 and Reply Brief 3-5.
Specifically, Appellants argue that Connolly, which the Examiner relies
upon to teach this feature, is concerned with allocating memory for channels
4
Appeal2018-000654
Application 14/165,513
on a mobile device, and does not discuss maintaining an internet connection
after delivery of the channel's content has stopped. App. Br. 15-17 (citing
Connolly abstract, col. 1, 11. 26-27, col. 5, 11. 24--50 and col 6. 11. 35-65).
The Examiner, in response to Appellants' arguments, states:
one of ordinary skill in the art would be inclined to infer from
the relationship between the server (" server" element 104 fig 1)
and mobile system, ("mobile device" element 110 fig 1)
disclosed by Connelly that the connection between the server
and the mobile receiving system is open and that the connection
is "maintained" due to several aspects related to
transmitted/received content updates of subscribed to
channels ... With respect to "stopping delivery of the second
video stream, Connelly discloses that those updates to the
channels can be suspended based on an amount of allocated
memory, ("suspend" col. 1 line 61 ).
Answer 16-17 (omitted portions citing col. 111. 43, 56, col. 2, 11. 18 and 21).
Additionally, the Examiner states:
The examiner also cites the following as prior art (newly cited
on PT0-892), which illustrate conventional TV broadcast
systems which periodically ( every I frame) stores content from
adjacent, preferred or related programs as that currently being
viewed, using the same or additional tuners. The important note
being that in the event a channel was desired from the internet,
maintaining a connection would be required, otherwise it would
be like the prior art turning off the TV, which destroys the
intent of storing relevant information (I-frame) for a potentially
other (next switched/selected channel). These same principles
apply to the current invention, where a connection is made and
maintained in order to periodically update the desired memories
as taught by the prior art.
Answer 18.
We have reviewed the teachings of Connolly cited by the Examiner to
teach the disputed limitations and concur with the Appellants that Connolly
5
Appeal2018-000654
Application 14/165,513
does not teach the disputed limitation directed to maintaining the internet
connection while delivery of streamed content is stopped. With respect to
the Examiner's further statement regarding additional art, the Examiner has
not identified a specific reference or specific teaching to support the
findings, nor has the Examiner included such findings ( directed to the
storing of I frames) in the rejection of the independent claims. Thus, the
findings are not part of a rejection before us. 3 Accordingly, we concur with
Appellants that the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 1 7 and 18
and dependent claims 2 through 4, and 16, is in error.
The Examiner has not shown that the additional references used in the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 5 through 9 and 12 through 15, make
up for the deficiencies in the rejection of independent claims 1, 17 and 18.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of these claims.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 through 9 and 12
through 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
3 If the Examiner considers that there are additional teachings necessary to
reject the claims, those references should be included in the rejection.
6