Ex Parte Kandekar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 14, 2016

13116035 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/116,035 05/26/2011 Kuna! Kandekar
71739 7590 04/15/2016
Concert Technology Corporation
5400 Trinity Road, Suite 303
Raleigh, NC 27607
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.
CT-ITV-OlOC/US (P425) 4659
EXAMINER
MAMILLAP ALLI, PAV AN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/15/2016 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 KUNAL KANDEKAR, CHRISTOPHER M. AMIDON, and
HUGH SVENDSEN
Appeal2014-005374 1
Application 13/116,035
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-27. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to a method and system for
managing the storage of media item content recorded in a digital video
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Eloy Technology, LLC.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-005374
Application 13/116,035
recorder (DVR). Spec. i-f 2, Fig. 9. In particular, a controller in a media
broker (12) partitions the media item into a plurality of media item segments
(106) stored in different layers of the DVR (16) according to an assigned
priority depending on whether the media item segment is likely to be
watched (e.g. important scenes), or likely to be skipped (e.g., advertisement,
end credits, etc.). More particularly, media item segments that are likely to
be watched are assigned to the upper layers of the storage medium, whereas
media items segments that are likely to be skipped are assigned to the lower
layers of the storage medium. In response to determining that storage space
is needed, data items from lower layers are first deleted. i-fi-190-94.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A media broker comprising components including:
a communication interface; and
a controller associated with the communication interface
configured to:
divide at least one media item into a plurality of media content
item layers, wherein dividing the at least one media item
includes assigning segments of the at least one media item that
have a high likelihood of being watched to a first layer and
assigning segments of the at least one media item that have a
high likelihood of being skipped to a second layer;
assign a priority to each of the plurality of media content item
layers, wherein a first layer of the plurality of media content
item layers is assigned a higher priority than the second layer of
the plurality of media content item layers;
direct one or more media storage devices to store the plurality
of media content item layers;
subsequently determine when space is needed; and
in response to determining that space is needed:
2
Appeal2014-005374
Application 13/116,035
select at least one of the plurality of media content item layers
based upon the priority of the at least one of the plurality of
media content item layers; and
delete the at least one of the plurality of media content item
layers selected to be deleted.
wherein at least one of the components includes at least one
electronic hardware component.
Rejection on Appeal
Appellants request review of the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Reisman (US 7,751,628 Bl, issued July 6, 2010) and Hendricks et al. (US
6,408,437 Bl, issued June 18, 2002).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Reisman and Hendricks teaches or suggests assigning to a first layer of a
storage medium segments of a media item having a high likelihood of being
watched, and assigning to a second layer of the storage medium segments of
the media item having a high likelihood of being skipped such that a selected
one of the layers is deleted according to a priority when a need for more
storage space arises, as required by independent claim 1. App. Br. 29-35,
Reply Br. 5-7. In particular, Appellants argue that Reisman discloses
storing media item content in a layer by layer sequence, wherein the quality
of the data is progressively improved from the base layer containing
essential data for presentation to the upper layers containing supplementary
quality data. App. Br. 21 (citing Reisman 17:35-18: 46). Appellants also
3
Appeal2014-005374
Application 13/116,035
submit that, in order to create needed storage space, Reisman discloses a
progressive deletion mechanism wherein layers of data with low significance
(upper layers) are progressively deleted while retaining layers of data with
high significance (lower/enhancement layers). Id. at 19-21, 27-29, 32
(citing Reisman 12:1-20, 18:47-64). According to Appellants, because the
same media content is included in all the layers, Reisman's progressive
deletion of enhancement layers would only result in reducing the quality
level of the data, and would thereby preserve the media content item. Reply
Br. 6. That is, the deletion of one of the media content item layers as recited
in Appellants' claims would result in deleting a portion (i.e., a segment) of
the media content, as opposed to deleting a portion of the quality thereof as
taught by Reisman. Id. This argument is persuasive.
Reisman discloses a data storage structure wherein a data object is
partitioned into a plurality of frames/samples grouped vertically as
individual data segments S1 ... Sn across a plurality of layers Li ... Lm
arranged horizontally such that the base layer (L1) contain high significance
data and the additional enhancement layers (L2 ... Lm) contain lower
significance data. Reisman 16:38-58, Fig. 2. Further, Reisman discloses a
progressive deletion mechanism wherein data is stored on a layer by layer
basis to facilitate the deletion of an entire layer. Id. 17:35--42. Because the
segments of the data object are arranged vertically, whereas each layer is
arranged horizontally, only a portion of each particular object segment is
deleted when the layer is deleted. Reisman, Fig. 2. Thus, Reisman's
disclosure of deleting a layer results in deleting a portion S (1, 1 ), S (2, 1 ), S
4
Appeal2014-005374
Application 13/116,035
(2, n) of each data object segment featured in the layer, whereas the deletion
of a layer in Appellants' claimed invention results in deleting the entire data
item segment featured in the layer. Therefore, although the deletion of a
layer in both Reisman and the claimed invention results in deleting a portion
of the data item, the deletion of a layer in Reisman results in deleting a
portion of each data object segment corresponding to data enhancement
thereof, whereas deleting a layer in the claimed invention results in deleting
an entire data object segment thereof corresponding to a scene, end credit, or
advertisement. Consequently, we agree with Appellants that Reisman's
disclosure of deleting a layer does not teach or suggest deleting a segment of
the data object depending on whether the data is likely to be
skipped/watched as claimed. Likewise, we agree with Appellants
Hendrick's disclosure of identifying most likely to be watched programs
would not alter the basic layout of Reisman, and would not thereby cure the
noted deficiencies of Reisman. App. Br. 30 (citing Hendricks 37:15--44).
Because Appellants have shown at least one reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection, we need not reach Appellants' remaining arguments.
Accordingly, Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Reisman and Hendricks renders claim 1 unpatentable.
Because claims 2-27 also recite commensurate limitations to those of
claim 1 discussed above, we similarly find error in the Examiner's rejection
of those claims.
5
Appeal2014-005374
Application 13/116,035
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) of
claims 1-27 as set forth above.
REVERSED
6