Ex Parte Kaufman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 19, 2016

12211700 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/211,700 09/16/2008 Matthew Kaufman
111003 7590 02/23/2016
Adobe I Finch & Maloney PLLC
50 Commercial Street
Manchester, NH 03101
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.
AD01.P863 8965
EXAMINER
HOUSHMAND, HOOMAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2016 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):
docketing@finchmaloney.com
nmaloney@finchmaloney.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW KAUFMAN and MICHAEL THORNBURGH
Appeal2014-003556
Application 12/211,700 1
Technology Center 2400
Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-54, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants indicate the real party in interest is Adobe Systems, Inc. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2014-003556
Application 12/211,700
Summary of the Invention
The claimed invention relates to multicast systems, methods, and
computer program products. Spec. i-f 1.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving data from a first source over a first network, the
data corresponding to a multicast;
receiving other data from a second source over a second
network, the other data corresponding to the multicast; and
assembling the data and the other data to generate
combined data, wherein at least some of the data and the other
data are identical.
Applied Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
McCANNE
YAZAWA
US 2003/0088696 Al
US 2001/0037256 Al
Rejections
May 8, 2003
Nov. 1, 2001
Claims 1-3 and 5-54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over McCanne.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over McCanne and Y azawa.
2
Appeal2014-003556
Application 12/211,700
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 1and35
Appellants contend the Examiner erred rejecting independent claim 1,
because McCanne fails to teach or suggest "wherein at least some of the
data and the other data are identical." App. Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 2-3.
Appellants assert the Examiner has not pointed to any particular disclosure
in McCanne that reads on this portion of claim 1. Reply Br. 2. We agree.
In the Final Action, the Examiner cites to paragraph 164 of McCanne
as teaching this limitation. Final Act. 3, 4. Paragraph 164 describes a
destination computer communicating with a web server via a web browser to
obtain a video data stream transferred through an overlay channel operating
on the Internet. After a review of Paragraph 164, we are unable to discern
any teaching or suggestion of the limitation "wherein some of the data and
the other data are identical," recited in claim 1.
In the Answer, the Examiner states, "[i]t appears that the
[Specification] is not describing or supporting the last limitation of claim 1,
wherein at least some of the data and the other data are identical. The
disclosure is only stating that when redundant data is received, it is
discarded. This is the basic structure of the internet." Ans. 35. Here, the
Examiner appears to suggest that the requirements of Section 112 have not
been met, but the Examiner has not made a corresponding rejection of claim
1 on these grounds. The Examiner also appears to assert that a portion of the
Specification is describing a basic structure of the Internet. This, by itself,
however, is insufficient to justify a rejection under Section 103.
Accordingly, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding
McCanne teaches or suggests the limitation "wherein at least some of the
3
Appeal2014-003556
Application 12/211,700
data and the other data are identical," as recited in independent claim 1.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and its
dependent claims 2-14.
Appellants also contend the Examiner erred rejecting independent
claim 35, which recites a similar limitation, "determining if the received data
has been previously received." Appellants argue that Paragraph 90 of
McCanne, cited by the Examiner, does not teach or suggest this limitation
either. App. Br. 12. We agree. After reviewing Paragraph 90, we are
unable to discern any teaching or suggestion of this limitation.
Accordingly, we find the Examiner erred in finding McCanne teaches
or suggests the limitation "wherein at least some of the data and the other
data are identical," as recited in independent claim 35. Therefore, we do
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 35, and its dependent claims
36-41.
Independent Claim 15
Appellants contend the Examiner erred rejecting independent claim 15
because McCanne does not teach or suggest "receiving other data from a
mesh network, the other data corresponding to the multicast from the
source." App. Br. 9, 10. Appellants argue McCanne describes
unidirectional and bidirectional intercommunication between end-clients and
the overlay network and that sending a copy of a packet to an end-client
does not teach the claimed limitation. App. Br. 9.
The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, McCanne discloses a
mesh network of overlay routers forwarding packets by embedding them in
native multicast datagrams. Ans. 36 (citing McCanne, i-f 90). The Examiner
also finds, and we agree, McCanne provides examples of several
4
Appeal2014-003556
Application 12/211,700
applications, such as Real Networks, iviicrosoft Netshow, and Cisco IP/TV,
which may receive packets from, for example, a cluster of overlay routers
arranged in a mesh, assemble them, and present them to users. Ans. 36, 37
(citing McCanne, i-f 104).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred finding
McCanne teaches or suggests "receiving other data from a mesh network,
the other data corresponding to the multicast from the source," as recited in
independent claim 15. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 15.
Independent Claim 2 7
Appellants contend the Examiner erred rejecting independent claim 27
because McCanne does not teach or suggest each of the claim limitations.
App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 3.
The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, McCanne teaches
generating, at a source, a plurality of multicast data fragments, each
multicast data fragment comprising a sequence number and data;
transmitting at least some of the plurality of multicast data fragments to a
computer on a mesh network, where in a multicast case,
a collection of overlay routers peer with each other using native
multicast running across a single TVIF. [C]ommunication
abstraction is isomorphic to a fully-connected mesh of overlay
routers. [C]ontrol channels are effected using a fully connected
mesh of TCP connections, while the pairwise virtual data
channels are effected using a single native multicast group. To
isolate this multicast traffic to a well confined region, peer
routers may be placed in an overlay scope, where either or both
administrative and TTL scope boundaries limit the reach of data
traffic. This scope defines a specific segment of the overlay
network and peer routers forward overlay packets to each other
by embedding them in native multicast datagrams) ([0100]
5
Appeal2014-003556
Application 12/211,700
bidirectional case provides richer control - fully meshed
intercommunication in a bandwidth-managed fashion) ([O 104]
Applications like the Real Networks G2 Server, Microsoft
Netshow, Cisco IP/TV, and the MBone tools can bridge into an
overlay network by building shims around the applications. The
shims configure the tools appropriately and signal overlay
group setup information to a nearby overlay router using the
techniques described above. A shim can be a non-trivial
application and export a sophisticated user interface. For
example, a broadcast control center could be built that provides
the OMN signaling information to bridge between a bank of
RealNetworks G2 servers and a cluster of overlay routers
arranged in a mesh);
Final Act. 12, 13 (citing McCanne, i-fi-190, 100, and 104); see also, Ans. 37.
The Examiner also finds, and we agree, McCanne teaches, in a
different embodiment, the recited transmitting at least some of the plurality
of multicast data fragments to a native multicast address accessible by the
computer, where
the network model assumed by an overlay network is a
collection of isolated, but possibly overlapping, regions of
native multicast connectivity. Overlay routers are deployed
across this arrangement of multicast clouds and peer with each
other either via unicast or multicast UDP/IP to form a network
of application-aware multicast forwarding agents. End hosts
inject traffic into the overlay network using either native
multicast across a leaf scope or using unicast communication
directly to a nearby overlay router),
Final Act. 13, 14 (citing McCanne, i143); see also, Ans. 37 and 38.
The Examiner further finds, and we also agree, McCanne teaches the
limitation, wherein the computer is configured to assemble the plurality of
multicast data fragments using the plurality of sequence numbers, where a
user may engage
6
Appeal2014-003556
Application 12/211,700
a link to receive the streaming media video production. [D]ata
from source computer may already be streaming when
destination computer makes a request for the stream. [S]ource
computer registers its channel with the overlay network so that
other Media Bridges and web servers know how to associate an
overlay channel with the data stream. a directory services table
can be maintained by web server so that web server can carry
out the redirection process for a published channel. When the
user of destination computer chooses to receive the video
program, e.g., by clicking on a link, web page graphic, symbol
or other control, web server transfers information on how to
subscribe to the video program as shown by the path.
transactions between destination computer 102 and web server
104 are governed by HTTP /TCP.
Final Act. 14 (citing McCanne, i-f 164). The Examiner explains, and we
agree, that McCanne is simply teaching
what happens when a user clicks on a graphic on a web page.
E.g. the website of a news channel that, has feeds from many
different sources, some possibly real time. McCanne discloses
how the packets are received over the two networks that,
operate on the underlying internet structure; next, how they are
combined or assembled; to present, the user, with the display.
Both the invention and McCanne are utilizing the same two
networks, operating on the same underlying internet network,
receiving the same packets, and, producing the same final
display.
Ans. 36 (citing McCanne, i-f 164).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred finding
McCanne teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of independent claim
27. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of this claim.
Dependent Claims 19-22, 24, 34, and 45-48
Appellants contend the Examiner erred rejecting these dependent
claims because McCanne fails to teach or suggest that a receiver determines
7
Appeal2014-003556
Application 12/211,700
whether data has been previously received, or rece1vmg an instruction that
data has been previously received. App. Br. 13-15. Appellants argue that
Paragraph 179 ofMcCanne cited by the Examiner has no such teaching. Id.
We agree.
In the Final Action, the Examiner rejected each of these dependent
claims by reciting the limitation and citing to Paragraph 1 79 of McCanne,
stating that McCanne teaches the limitation. See Final Act. 11-16, 21, and
22. In the Answer, the Examiner states that Appellants did not provide
separate arguments for these claims and that this failure constituted a waiver.
Ans. 39.
We disagree. Although brief, Appellants did provide arguments as to
why they believed the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims and why they
believed the cited art did not teach the disputed limitation. See App. Br. 13-
15.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred rejecting dependent
claims 19-22, 24, 34, and 45--48. Therefore, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of these claims.
Remaining Claims
Appellants have not presented persuasive, substantive arguments with
respect to remaining claims 16-18, 23, 25, 26, 28-33, 42--44, and 49-54.
See App. Br. 6-15. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2012).
8
Appeal2014-003556
Application 12/211,700
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 15-18, 23, 25-33, 42-
44, and 49-54.
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-14, 19-22, 24, 34--
41, and 45--48.
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
9