Ex Parte Huang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2016

13155762 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/155,762 06/08/2011
23696 7590 09/26/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Xiaolong Huang
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.
110403 3657
EXAMINER
ELFERVIG, TAYLOR A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2016 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XIAOLONG HUANG, VIJAYALAKSHMI R. RAVEENDRAN,
XUN LUO, PHANIKUMAR K. BHAMIDIPATI, and SOHAM V. SHETH
Appeal2014-009550
Application 13/155,762
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA, II, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-62, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is QUALCOMM
Incorporated. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-009550
Application 13/155,762
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention generally relates to multimedia streaming
systems utilizing multiple description coding. Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1 and 11,
which are exemplary, read as follows:
1. A method operable at a wireless communication device for
multipath rate adaptation, comprising:
transmitting information on each of a plurality of paths;
receiving feedback information comprising one or more
traffic performance variables for the plurality of paths;
adapting the transmitting on one or more of the paths in
response to the feedback information; and
synchronizing among the plurality of paths to compensate
for the adapting of the transmitting.
11. A method of providing feedback for multipath rate
adaptation, comprising:
receiving information over a plurality of paths; and
providing feedback information responsive to the
information, wherein the feedback information comprises an
information element corresponding to a relationship between at
least two of the plurality of paths, the information element
configured to enable adaptation of at least one of a transmission
rate or a coding rate for the information on at least one of the
paths.
Rejections
Claims 1, 4, 9, 16, 19, 24, 31, 34, 46, 49, and 54 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gorokhov
(US 2010/0091893 Al; published Apr. 15, 2010) and Goldfein et al. (US
2013/0054819 Al; published Feb. 28, 2013) ("Goldfein"). Final Act. 6-9.
2
Appeal2014-009550
Application 13/155,762
Claims 2, 3, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 41, 42, 44,
45, 47, 48, 56, 57, 59, and 60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Gorokhov, Goldfein, and Yao
Wang et al., Multiple Description Codingfor Video Delivery, 93(1)
Proceedings of the IEEE, 57-70 (Jan. 2005) ("Wang"). Final Act. 9-11, 19-
24.
Claims 5-8, 20-23, 35-39, 50-53, 61, and 62 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gorokhov,
Goldfein, and Aaron et al. (US 2009/0327918 Al; published Dec. 31, 2009)
("Aaron"). Final Act. 11-18.
Claims 10, 25, 40, and 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Gorokhov, Goldfein, and
Klassen et al. (US 2002/0080726 Al; published June 27, 2002) ("Klassen"). 2
Final Act. 18-19.
Claims 13, 28, 43, and 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Gorokhov, Wang, Goldfein, and
Apostolopoulos et al. (US 2003/0007515 Al; published Jan. 9, 2003)
("Apostolopoulos"). Final Act. 24--26.
Claims 61 and 62 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Lee et al. (US 2011/0176060 Al;
published July 21, 2011) ("Lee"), Goldfein, and Aaron. Final Act. 25-29.
2 Although the statement of rejection lists Aaron as being relied upon to
reject these claims, the body of the rejection discusses Klassen. Final
Act. 18-19. We find the listing of Aaron to be a typographical error and,
therefore, treat the rejection as being based on Gorokhov, Goldfein, and
Klassen.
3
Appeal2014-009550
Application 13/155,762
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Gorokhov and
Goldfein teaches or suggests "receiving feedback information comprising
one or more traffic performance variables for the plurality of paths," as
recited in claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Gorokhov and
Goldfein teaches or suggests "synchronizing among the plurality of paths to
compensate for the adapting of the transmitting," as recited in claim 1, and
similarly recited in independent claims 16, 31, 46, and 61?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Gorokhov,
Goldfein, and Wang teaches or suggests
wherein the feedback information comprises an information
element corresponding to a relationship between at least two of
the plurality of paths, the information element configured to
enable adaptation of at least one of a transmission rate or a coding
rate for the information on at least one of the paths,
as recited in claim 11, and similarly recited in independent claims 26, 41,
and 56?
Did the Examiner err in combining Gorokhov, Wang, and Goldfein?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellants contend the combination of Gorokhov and Goldfein does
not teach or suggest "synchronizing among the plurality of paths to
compensate for the adapting of the transmitting," as recited in claim 1. App.
Br. 9-15; Reply Br. 3-7. The Examiner acknowledges that Gorokhov does
not teach the disputed limitation and, instead, relies on the teachings of
Goldfein. Final Act. 7 (citing Goldfein i-fi-1 42, 100; Fig. 5). The Examiner
4
Appeal2014-009550
Application 13/155,762
finds:
Goldfein teaches a receiver sending SYN packets over a
feedback channel (feedback) wherein the sender uses the
feedback to increase or decrease transmission rate depending
upon network conditions which includes adding another data
channel (plurality of paths). The system of Goldfein
demonstrates that it can use a plurality of paths and then use the
feedback information (SYN packets) from the sender to
determine how to tune the transmission[].
Id. (emphasis omitted).
Appellants contend Goldfein fails to teach or suggest using the SYN
packets, or information contained therein, to synchronize a plurality of paths,
as required by claim 1. App. Br. 14. Appellants contend Goldfein, instead,
teaches "using the timestamps of sequentially sent SYN packets to change
the rate of sending the data packets on the data channel," which does not
teach or suggest "synchronizing among the plurality of paths," as recited in
claim 1. Reply Br. 5.
We find Appellants' contentions persuasive. With respect to the
claims "synchronizing," Appellants' Specification states "when an
adaptation of one or more of the paths in response to the feedback
information may cause the paths to come out of synchronization, the
synchronization information may be utilized ... to compensate and bring the
paths [back] into synchronization." Spec. i-f 31. Thus, we find
"synchronizing among the plurality of paths to compensate for the adapting
of the transmitting" to require the performance of some action (e.g.,
throttling or seeking forward one or more of the plurality of paths (see id.))
resulting in a path, which was brought out of synchronization with the
remaining paths as a result of the "adapting," to be brought into
5
Appeal2014-009550
Application 13/155,762
synchronization with the remaining paths. The Examiner's findings fail to
show how Goldfein's use of the feedback to increase or decrease
transmission rate depending upon network conditions, including adding
another data channel, results in one data channel (e.g., path) being brought
into synchronization with another data channel. As such, the Examiner has
failed to show that the combination of Gorokhov and Goldfein teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation.
We do not reach Appellants' further allegations of error because we
find the issue discussed above to be dispositive of the rejection of claim 1
and of claims 16, 31, and 46, argued together with claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1;
claims 16, 31, and 46, which recite corresponding limitations; and claims 4,
9, 19, 24, 31, 34, 49, and 54, which depend from claims 1, 16, 31, and 46.
Claims 2, 3, 5-8, 10, 17, 18, 20-23, 25, 32, 33, 35--45, 47, 48, 50-53,
and 55 depend from claims 1, 16, 31, and 46. These claims stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Gorokhov, Goldfein, and various
combinations of Wang, Aaron, and Klassen. The Examiner does not find
that these additional references cure the deficiencies in the teachings of
Goldfein discussed supra. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of
claims 2, 3, 5-8, 10, 17, 18, 20-23, 25, 32, 33, 35--45, 47, 48, 50-53, and 55
for the same reasons.
Claim 61 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Gorokhov, Goldfein, and Aaron and
the combination of Lee, Goldfein, and Aaron. Final Act. 11, 25. Claim 61
recites limitations corresponding to the limitation discussed above with
respect to claim 1. The Examiner does not find that Lee or Aaron cures the
6
Appeal2014-009550
Application 13/155,762
deficiencies in the teachings of Goldfein discussed supra. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the rejections of claim 61 and claim 62, which depends
therefrom, for the reasons discussed for claim 1.
Claim 11
Appellants contend the combination of Gorokhov, Wang, and
Goldfein does not teach or suggest
wherein the feedback information comprises an information
element corresponding to a relationship between at least two of
the plurality of paths, the information element configured to
enable adaptation of at least one of a transmission rate or a coding
rate for the information on at least one of the paths,
as recited in claim 11. App. Br. 19-21; Reply Br. 8-9. Appellants contend:
Wang's description of multiple path transport, in section IV of
the publication, indicates, "We assume the system receives
feedback about network quality of service (QoS) parameters
(e.g., bandwidth, delay, and loss probabilities)." Nothing in the
disclosure discloses, teaches, or suggests any information
element corresponding to a relationship between paths, however.
Furthermore, nothing in the cited reference discloses, teaches, or
suggests an IE configured to enable adaptation of a transmission
rate or a coding rate for the information on at least one of the
paths. Wang's feedback about network QoS parameters is not
described as being configured to enable such an adaptation.
App. Br. 20-21.
We do not find Appellants' contention persuasive. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Wang teaches that the system receives feedback
information that includes QoS parameters such as bandwidth, delay, and loss
probabilities. Ans. 11 (citing Wang 66, Fig. 5). Wang teaches generating M
multiple packetized bit-streams and distributing packets from sub-streams
among K paths based on the QoS parameters. Wang 66. Wang teaches that
path selection (e.g., distributing the packets among the K paths) should try to
7
Appeal2014-009550
Application 13/155,762
minimize the expected distortion of reconstructed video and that minimizing
the expected distortion depends on the loss characteristics of the individual
paths as well as path correlation. Wang 66. As such, Wang teaches, or at
least suggests, that the QoS parameters correspond to a relationship between
the plurality of paths. We are not persuaded by Appellants' contention that
Wang fails to teach or suggest the QoS parameters are configured to enable
adaptation of at least one of a transmission rate or a coding rate for the
information on at least one of the paths because the Examiner relies on
Goldfein, not Wang, for teaching this limitation. Id. Accordingly, we are
not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Appellants further contend the combination of Gorokhov, Wang, and
Goldfein is improper "because the proposed combination would change the
principle of operation of these references." App. Br. 21; see also App.
Br. 15-16. In particular, Appellants contend the combination is improper
"[f]or substantially the same reasons given above with respect to
Independent Claim 1." App. Br. 21. With respect to claim 1, Appellants
contend the combination of Gorokhov and Goldfein is improper because:
[T]here is no reason to modify the disclosure of Gorokhov
to synchronize the separate, independent downlink paths (e.g.,
the paths 104 and 110 transmitted from the eNB 102 in Figure 1)
with one another. Synchronization among these separate,
independent CoMP transmissions would not be meaningful or
necessary, and fundamentally changes the principle of operation
of the Gorokhov reference.
App. Br. 16 (emphasis omitted).
Claim 11 does not require synchronization among a plurality of paths.
Further, the Examiner does not find it would be obvious to modify the
teachings of Gorokhov to include synchronization among a plurality of
8
Appeal2014-009550
Application 13/155,762
paths. See Final Act. 21. Instead, the Examiner modifies the teachings of
Gorokhov and Wang to include an information element configured to enable
adaptation of at least one of a transmission rate or a coding rate for the
information on at least one of the paths. Id. As such, Appellants'
contentions fail to address the specific findings made by the Examiner and,
therefore, are unpersuasive of error.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 11; claims 26, 41, and 5 6, which recite corresponding limitations and
are argued together with claim 11; and claims 12-15, 27-30, 42--45, and 57-
60, which depend from claims 11, 26, 41, and 56 and are not separately
argued. See App. Br. 21.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, 9, 16, 19, 24, 31,
34, 46, 49, and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Gorokhov and
Goldfein.
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3, 17, 18, 32, 33, 47,
and 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Gorokhov, Goldfein, and Wang.
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 5-8, 20-23, 35-39,
50-53, 61, and 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Gorokhov, Goldfein,
and Aaron.
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 10, 25, 40, and 55
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Gorokhov, Goldfein, and Klassen.
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 61 and 62 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Lee, Goldfein, and Aaron.
9
Appeal2014-009550
Application 13/155,762
We atlirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 11, 12, 14, 15, 26, 27,
29, 30, 41, 42, 44, 45, 56, 57, 59, and 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Gorokhov, Wang, and Goldfein.
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 13, 28, 43, and 58 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Gorokhov, Wang, Goldfein, and
Apostolopoulos.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10