Ex Parte Jin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 6, 2013

10763422 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte HAI JIN, XIAO FEI LIAO,
QIONG HUA HU, and LI PING PANG
____________________

Appeal 2011-003239
Application 10/763,422
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-003239
Application 10/763,422

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 2, 4-7, 9-15, 17-20, and 22-27. A new ground of rejection for claims 14-
26 has been entered by the Examiner. Ans. 3. An oral hearing was conducted
on this appeal on May 14, 2013. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). Claims 3 and 81 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected
base claim.
We AFFIRM.

Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention “relates to a method of
information processing and storage,” involving “the fields of parallel and
distributed processing and video processing technologies.” Spec. ¶ [0002].

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of video splitting and allocation for clustered video
servers, the method comprising:
defining a structure of a network packet, a structure of a
distributed control file, and a structure of a clip file;
analyzing information of streaming media source files,
and processing a client's requirements to obtain a splitting
requirement of the streaming media source files into clip files,
the splitting requirement being the manner in which the media
source files are split, the splitting requirement being one of clip

1 Claims 16 and 21 were also objected to as being dependent upon a rejected
base claim. However, claims 16 and 21 have been newly rejected under
35 U.S.C. 101.
Appeal 2011-003239
Application 10/763,422

3
placement based on clip time and clip placement based on
quantity of clip splitting;
defining a split files placement strategy and analyzing a
clip file allocating requirements, according to the client's
requirements;
analyzing the streaming media source files to construct a
splitting task list and relevant control files, according to the
client's requirements;
creating several threads to split the streaming media
source files, wherein each thread is responsible for splitting a
streaming media source file; and
distributing the clip files to relevant storage server nodes,
according to the split files placement strategy.

References
Field
Belknap
US 4,680,630
US 5,668,948
Jul. 14, 1987
Sep. 16, 1997
Kato
Klemets
US 2002/0145702 A1
US 2003/0236912 A1
Oct. 10, 2002
Dec. 25, 2003

Rejections
Claims 1, 5-7, 11, 14, 18-20, 24, and 27 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Belknap, Kato, and Field.
Ans. 3-15.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 22, 23, 25, and 26 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Belknap, Kato, Field,
and Klemets. Ans. 15-22.
Claims 14-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed
to non-statutory subject matter. Ans. 22-23.

We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We address only those issues raised
Appeal 2011-003239
Application 10/763,422

4
by Appellants. Arguments Appellants could have but chose not to make in
the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
In order to assess the differences between the claimed invention and
the prior art, we must construe the claims of the patent application. During
examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, and the language should be read in light of
the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Amer. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(citations omitted).
The relevant portion of claim 1 recites “processing a client's
requirements to obtain a splitting requirement of the streaming media source
files into clip files, the splitting requirement being the manner in which the
media source files are split, the splitting requirement being one of clip
placement based on clip time and clip placement based on quantity of clip
splitting.” Although we have construed each portion of the claim in the
process of reviewing this Appeal, we make our construction of this
limitation explicit because Appellants’ primary arguments are directed to
this limitation.
We construe this limitation to require only one step, namely
processing a client’s requirements, at least one result of which is obtaining a
“splitting requirement,” where the splitting requirement has certain
characteristics. Contrary to Appellants’ implied construction (based on the
arguments presented), the limitation does not recite a step of determining
whether the splitting is done by time or quantity. Rather, the portion of the
limitation reciting “the splitting requirement being the manner in which the
media source files are split” merely provides an explanation of the claim
Appeal 2011-003239
Application 10/763,422

5
term “splitting requirement” and does not further limit the claim beyond the
limits of any reasonable construction of “splitting requirement.”
Furthermore, the portion of the limitation reciting “the splitting requirement
being one of clip placement based on clip time and clip placement based on
quantity of clip splitting” simply requires that the splitting requirement be
one of two things – clip placement based on clip time or clip placement
based on quantity of clip splitting.
Thus, we construe the limitation to require processing client
requirements to obtain a splitting requirement (which defines how, or the
manner in which, the media files are split into clip files), where the splitting
requirement is one of: (1) clip placement based on clip time; or (2) clip
placement based on quantity of clip splitting.
We note Appellants acknowledge the construction regarding the
splitting requirement being the manner in which the media source files are
split into clip files. App. Br. 12 (Appellants assert that a “splitting
requirement is inherently the requirement for how to split the streaming
media source files into clip files – i.e., the manner in which they are split”)
(emphasis added); App. Br. 12 (“the splitting requirement, which is
inherently how it is required to split the media source files”) (emphasis in
original); App. Br. 13 (“a splitting requirement is inherently the manner in
which media source files are split”).

ISSUE 1
Appellants argue claims 14-26 are directed to statutory subject matter
because “a signal is not transitory.” Reply 4.
Appeal 2011-003239
Application 10/763,422

6
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims14-26 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter?

ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions and sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 14-26 as being directed to non-statutory
subject matter. We note that the Examiner has cited the appropriate case law
and Appellants have not provided sufficient argument or evidence to
persuade us that claims 14-26 contain patentable subject matter.

ISSUE 2
Appellants also argue the cited references do not teach each limitation
recited in claims 1, 14, and 27. App. Br. 11-14. Specifically, Appellants
argue none of the cited references teach “the splitting requirement being the
manner in which media source files are split,” or “the splitting requirement
being one of clip placement based on clip time and clip placement based on
quantity of clip splitting,” as recited in claims 1, 14, and 27. App. Br. 11-14.
Appellants assert the combination of Belknap, Kato, and Field does not
teach “defining a split files placement strategy . . . according to the client's
requirements,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 14. Appellants further argue
the Examiner has improperly combined the cited references because the
Examiner does not provide an apparent reason with rational underpinning
for the combination of Belknap with Kato or for the combination of Belknap
and Kato with Field. App. Br. 14-15.
Issue 2a: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Belknap, Kato, and Field teaches “the splitting requirement being the
Appeal 2011-003239
Application 10/763,422

7
manner in which media source files are split,” “the splitting requirement
being one of clip placement based on clip time and clip placement based on
quantity of clip splitting,” and “defining a split files placement strategy . . .
according to the client’s requirements,” as recited in independent claims 1,
14, and 27?
Issue 2b: Has the Examiner erred in combining Belknap with Kato
and Belknap-Kato with Field?

ANALYSIS
Issue 2a - 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Alleged Limitations Not Taught in
Independent Claims 1, 14, 27
As discussed above, we find “the splitting requirement being the
manner in which media source files are split” merely explains the meaning
of splitting requirement rather than providing a separate, further limitation.
Therefore, to the extent the Examiner finds the combination of Belknap and
Kato teaches obtaining a splitting requirement, those references also teach
“the splitting requirement being the manner in which media source files are
split.” See, e.g. App. Br. 12 (Appellants argue the “splitting requirement is
inherently the requirement for how to split the streaming media source files
into clip files – i.e., the manner in which they are split” (emphasis added)).
The Examiner finds Belknap teaches splitting a video file into “a
plurality of N data blocks, each data block storing data corresponding
approximately to a T/N period of the video presentation.” Ans. 5 (quoting
Belknap col. 3 ll. 5-7), 23-24 (citing Belknap col. 8 ll. 38-55). We agree with
the Examiner’s findings that Belknap therefore teaches obtaining a splitting
Appeal 2011-003239
Application 10/763,422

8
requirement, where the splitting requirement is based on quantity. Ans. 23-
24.
The Examiner further finds Kato teaches splitting a file into segments
using information regarding the clip to identify starting and stopping points
for splitting purposes. Ans. 24 (citing Kato ¶ [0167]). Appellants argue
Kato’s editing of an AV stream by allowing a user to select a start and end
time, which Appellants also characterize as “[m]erely causing the files to be
split based on a user’s indication of a specific song portion,” does not meet
the recited language. App. Br. 12. Given our construction of the relevant
limitation in conjunction with Appellants’ position that Kato teaches using a
start and end time to edit the media stream in order to cause the files to be
split, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Therefore, we find the
combination of Belknap and Kato teaches “analyzing information of
streaming media source files, and processing a client's requirements to
obtain a splitting requirement of the streaming media source files into clip
files, the splitting requirement being the manner in which the media source
files are split, the splitting requirement being one of clip placement based on
clip time and clip placement based on quantity of clip splitting,” as recited in
claim 1.
Appellants argue the combination of Belknap, Kato, and Field does
not teach analyzing a client’s requirements. The Examiner finds Kato
receives input in a clip information file to obtain the splitting requirement.
Ans. 24. We agree with the Examiner. We also note that Belknap teaches
breaking up the incoming file into segments upon receiving commands over
a control interface. Belknap col. 8 ll. 38-42. Appellants have not provided
sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
Appeal 2011-003239
Application 10/763,422

9
finding that the combination of Belknap, Kato, and Field teaches “defining a
split files placement strategy . . . according to the client's requirements.” See
App. Br. 15; See also Ans. 24.
Appellants further argue the present invention “analyzes a client’s
requirements to determine whether to split the media source files by time or
by quantity of clip splitting.” App. Br. 13. However, this argument is not
commensurate with the scope of the claims – as discussed above, we do not
find a “determining” step recited in claim 1. Appellants’ arguments that
Belknap does not determine “whether [the files are split] based on clip time
or based on quantity of clip splitting” and that “Kato only suggests splitting
files into clips based on time” are similarly not commensurate with the scope
of the claims. Reply 4, 5. As discussed with respect to the properly
construed limitation, Kato’s teaching of splitting files into clips based on
time is sufficient to meet the recited limitation.

Issue 2b - 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Alleged Insufficient Rationale for
Combination
The Examiner finds the combination of Belknap and Kato obvious
because both Belknap and Kato relate to similar technologies and the
Examiner finds it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the
art to produce quality video. Appellants have not provided sufficient
evidence or argument to persuade us that the Examiner’s motivation for
combination of Belknap and Kato lacks a rational underpinning.
With respect to Field, the Examiner has only relied upon Field for
teaching “the splitting requirement being the manner in which media source
files are split,” which does not further limit the claim under our claim
Appeal 2011-003239
Application 10/763,422

10
construction. Therefore, we do not address the rationale for combining Field
with the Belknap-Kato combination.

ISSUE 3
Finally, Appellants argue additional limitations of certain dependent
claims are not taught by the cited references. App. Br. 15-16. Specifically,
Appellants assert the combination of Belknap, Kato, Field, and Klemets does
not teach “the client’s requirements include obtaining and analyzing splitting
time requirements and clip placement strategy,” as recited in claims 11 and
24. App. Br. 15. Appellants also argue the combination of Belknap, Kato,
Field, and Klemets does not teach “the clip placement strategy includes a
data placement strategy, a hot level of a source video, and an algorithm for
allocating clips to the relevant storage server nodes,” as recited in claims 12
and 25. App. Br. 15-16. More specifically, Appellants argue “Belknap
merely discusses the placement and distribution of content across storage
media, but Belknap does not suggest a strategy for the data placement,”
whereas “the system of the present invention provides a data placement
strategy with client control.” App. Br. 16.
Issue 3: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combined references
teach “the client’s requirements include obtaining and analyzing splitting
time requirements and clip placement strategy,” as recited in claims 11 and
24 and “the clip placement strategy includes a data placement strategy, a hot
level of a source video, and an algorithm for allocating clips to the relevant
storage server nodes,” as recited in claims 12 and 25?
Appeal 2011-003239
Application 10/763,422

11

ANALYSIS
Appellants appear to argue that claims 11, 12, 24, and 25 relate to
client’s requirements, whereas the cited references do not include
requirements of the client. Appellants also appear to argue that Belknap
merely teaches placing data across storage media without a strategy.
However, Appellants have not provided sufficient argument or evidence to
convince us of error in the Examiner’s findings. The Examiner has provided
findings of each of the limitations and, giving “strategy” its broadest
reasonable interpretation, we agree with the Examiner that Belknap’s
placement and distribution of content across storage media based on various
factors meets the recited limitation. Ans. 20 (citing Belknap col. 12 ll. 19-
26). Thus we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 12, 24, and 25.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-
27 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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc