Ex Parte Kisel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2016

12261640 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/261,640 10/30/2008
48116 7590
FAY SHARPE/LUCENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843
03/28/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andrey Kise!
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.
LUTZ 200900US01 4753
EXAMINER
BOUT AH, ALINA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2016 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@faysharpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREY KISEL,
DA VE CECIL ROBINSON,
and TIAAN SCHUTTE 1
Appeal2014-003079
Application 12/261,640
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-11 and 13-18, which constitute all pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify Alcatel Lucent as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-003079
Application 12/261,640
Introduction
Appellants' Specification states "[t]he proposed invention relates to
methods and systems for providing resilient service quality in a managed
multimedia delivery network also known as [a] super peer-to-peer (sP2P)
network or caching overlay network." Spec. 1. Claim 1 is representative:
1. A managed multimedia delivery network for providing a
multimedia service with resilient service quality, comprising:
a plurality of caching nodes for caching multimedia data
segments;
an edge caching node for collecting requested multimedia
data segments from the caching nodes and for serving a user
equipment with the collected multimedia data; and
a service gateway for providing cache information to the
edge caching node indicating how to obtain the requested
multimedia data segments from the caching nodes, the cache
information indicating recommended caching nodes for
maintaining the service quality,
wherein the edge caching node comprises a service
quality monitoring unit for monitoring the collection of the data
segments from the caching nodes and for requesting cache
information from the service gateway when the collection of
data segments impacts the service quality.
App. Br. 22 (Claims App'x).
Rejections
Claims 1-11 and 13-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
the combination of Lai et al. (US 2004/0193648 Al; Sept. 30, 2004), Lemoff
et al. (US 2002/0181402 Al; Dec. 5, 2002), and Yang et al. (US
2007 /0294333 Al; Dec. 20, 2007).
2
Appeal2014-003079
Application 12/261,640
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments. Except as discussed otherwise below, we adopt as our own the
Examiner's findings and reasons, as clarified in the Answer. See Final Act.
2-23 and Ans. 2-14.
Claims l, 7, 11, and 15-Recommended Caching Nodes
For claim 1, the Examiner relies on Lem off to teach "recommended
caching nodes for maintaining the service quality." Final Act. 6. Appellants
argue that because Lemoff "only mention[s] a cache of routes to destination
nodes" that "[ n ]ow here does Lemoff teach or suggest the claimed cache
information, which recommends caching nodes, which in tum store
multimedia data segments that are collected by an edge caching node." App.
Br. 8.2
The Examiner answers that Lemoff' s "path discovery process"
teaches strategies selecting a path to a node for improving service quality;
such as by "fastest path" or "fewest hops." Ans. 24. We find unpersuasive
Appellants' argument in reply that "contrary to the Examiner's assertion,
nothing in the cited portions of Lemoff teaches or suggests that the
destination nodes of Lemoff are caching nodes as set forth in the subject
claims." Reply Br. 3.
Under a broad but reasonable interpretation, in view of the
Specification, claim 1 's "recommended caching nodes" correspond to nodes
2 As an initial observation on the "which in tum" claim requirements of
Appellants' argument, we note, as does the Examiner (Ans. 23), the rejection
relies on Lai, not Lemoff, for the storing of multimedia data segments that
are collected by an edge caching node. See Final Act. 5.
3
Appeal2014-003079
Application 12/261,640
that the service gateway recommends from the "plurality of caching nodes. "3
We agree with the Examiner that, in combination with Lai and its teaching
of "caching nodes, "4 Lemoff s disclosure of determining (and caching)
recommended nodes for maintaining service quality, based on the network
path to such nodes, teaches claim 1 's "recommended caching nodes."
We accordingly sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appellants present
essentially the same arguments for the other independent claims (7, 11, and
15) as for claim 1. See App. Br. 7-8, 12-14, and 17-18. Appellants present
no argument for patentability of claims 5, 8-10, and 18 separate from the
independent claims. Thus, for the reasons discussed supra, we also sustain
the rejection of claims 5, 7-11, 15, and 18.
Claim 2 - Service Gateway that Recommends Caching Nodes
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 2, which
depends from claim 1, because " [ n] ow here in the cited passage( s) [of Lai] is
there mention of a service gateway that recommends cache nodes to an edge
node." App. Br. 9. The Examiner answers that Lai's task manager 206 in
conjunction with streaming server 222 perform the recited functions of the
service gateway. Ans. 25 (citing Lai i-fi-197, 103, 107, and Fig. 5A).
Appellants in reply discuss the Examiner's citations to Lai and argue
it discloses "a web server interface that directs a viewer client to an
appropriate server from which to receive requested media content, but is
silent with regard to a service gateway that recommends caching nodes to an
edge node." Reply Br. 5.
3 This interpretation of "recommended caching nodes" is consistent with
Appellants' arguments.
4 Appellants do not contest the Examiner's findings that Lai discloses claim
1 's "caching nodes." See App. Br. 7-8 and Reply Br. 3--4.
4
Appeal2014-003079
Application 12/261,640
Appellants do not persuade us the Examiner errs in the identification
of components in Lai that map to the claim requirements, including the
service gateway and edge caching node. See Final Act 9 and Ans. 25. We
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2.
Claim 3 -Availability of Requested Data Segments
Claim 3 adds to claim 2 the requirement for the service gateway to
determine recommended caching nodes "based upon at least one of [ 1]
availability of the requested data segments on the caching nodes, [2] ... load
of the caching nodes, [3] available bandwidth for transmitting the requested
data segments, and [ 4] transmission network congestion" (numbers added).
In rejecting claim 3, the Examiner identifies that Lai teaches the first
alternative ("requested data segment availability"). Final Act. 9.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 3 because Lai
"is silent with regard to the claimed aspect of recommending cache nodes as
a function of availability of requested data segments." App. Br. 10. The
Examiner answers with an explanation of findings for how Lai requests
media content, determines available resources for delivering the requested
content, and then executes the delivery. Ans. 25-26.
Appellants in reply reiterate that none of the Examiner's citations to
Lai mention "recommending caching nodes as a function of requested data
segment availability." Reply 6. We are unpersuaded of error in the
Examiner's finding that Lai's resource manager (208; see Fig. 2) determines
available resources within the media transcoding engine (106) to deliver
requested media content to accomplish the claim requirement. One of
ordinary skill appreciates from Lai' s disclosure that available resources for
content delivery obviously includes whether the data (segments) are
5
Appeal2014-003079
Application 12/261,640
available. See Jn re Keller, ("The test for obviousness is not whether ... the
claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."); see also KSR
Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420-21 (concluding that "[a] person
of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton").
We accordingly sustain the rejection of claim 3. Appellants make
essentially the same argument for claims 13 and 16, see Reply Br. 15-16
and 18-19; we accordingly sustain the rejection of those claims on the same
basis.
Claim 4 - Denying Recommendation of Alternative Caching Nodes
Claim 4, depending from claim 2, adds a requirement for "denying
recommending alternative caching nodes if the speed of collecting data
segments ... is going to improve." Appellants argue Lai's cited passages
discuss only that its configuration is adjustable and may be updated if
network conditions change, and that it arranges for pipelining of steps, but
nothing in Lai describes the claimed requirement of denying
recommendation of alternative nodes if speed will improve. App. Br. 11-12.
The Examiner's answer is that Lai's
resource manager uses an algorithm where a predetermined
threshold determines the speed based on the number of accesses in
a given time, and the media content is retained or discarded or
denied. Also, the resource manager 208 arranges for the pipelining
of these steps through resource allocation within the media
transcoding engine 206. The pipelining of these steps results in a
faster delivery time or the speed associated for requested media by
the media transcoding engine 106).
Ans. 26.
6
Appeal2014-003079
Application 12/261,640
We are unpersuaded by the Examiner's findings regarding Lai' s
teaching an algorithm that determines speed from incoming access
requests, pipelining, and techniques for cache management. We agree
with Appellants that Lai neither teaches nor suggests claim 4' s
requirement to deny recommending alternative caching nodes if speed
will improve.
We accordingly do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4.
For the same reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 17,
which include the same requirements and stand rejected on the same
ground.
Claim 6 - Maintaining All Cores in the Cluster at a Same Frequency
Claim 6, depending from claim 1, adds the requirement that "the
service quality monitoring unit determines whether the speed of arriving
data segments is sufficient to pull the end of each segment before it has to be
delivered to the user equipment." The Examiner finds Lai teaches this
requirement. Final Act. 11.
Appellants argue Lai' s disclosure of pipelining and "resource
allocation within the media transcoding engine" do not teach the claimed
requirements to make a determination, before delivery of each segment, if
speed of arriving segments is sufficient. App. Br. 11-12. The Examiner
answers that in Lai
the configuration is modified or updated depending on the number
of users. The resource manager 208 arranges for the pipelining of
delivering the requested media content through resource allocation
within the media transcoding engine 106. The pipelining of these
steps results in a faster delivery time for requested media by the
media transcoding engine 106.
Ans. 27.
7
Appeal2014-003079
Application 12/261,640
Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings. See
Reply Br. 7 (concluding that "Lai fails to describe each and every
aspect"). The obviousness analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, as the
analysis can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. See KSR at 418-21.
We are persuaded by the Examiner's findings that the added
requirements of claim 6 are obvious in view of the cited teachings in Lai
regarding an "adjustable configuration" (i-f l 01) and pipeline management
that "results in a faster delivery time" (i-f 154 ).
We accordingly sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 6.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-3, 5-11, 13, 15, 16, and 18, and we reverse the rejection of claims 4, 14,
and 17. 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
8