Ex Parte Lahr et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 26, 2016

12791789 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121791,789 06/01/2010
29150 7590 05/31/2016
LEE & HA YES, PLLC
601 W. RIVERSIDE A VENUE
SUITE 1400
SPOKANE, WA 99201
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nils B. Lahr
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.
0010-000lUS 3370
EXAMINER
NAJEE-ULLAH, TARIQ S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2453
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2016 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):
lhpto@leehayes.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NILS B. LAHR, JOHN MORRIS, AJ GREGORY, and
ROBERT GREEN
Appeal2014-009619
Application 12/791,789
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claimed invention relates to "facilitating
peer-to-peer data exchange in a common domain." Abstract.
Appeal2014-009619
Application 12/791,789
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1, is exemplary:
1. A method implemented in computer-executable
instructions for communicating content between peers in a
network:
upon a first peer connecting to a domain, executing a host
application that starts a peer-to-peer stack for registering the first
peer with a super peer, wherein the super peer is either a server
or a peer that stores information identifying one or more other
peers in the domain, and wherein registering the first peer with
the super peer comprises the first peer providing registration data
to the super peer that includes:
a port number to which the first peer is listening in regard
to communication of the content;
an address of the first peer; and
a domain on which the first peer is active;
obtaining data that describes network conditions and
identifies chunks of content available from the one or more peers;
wherein the content is divided into a plurality of chunks
and wherein the chunks of content available from the one or more
peers may have previously been encoded for transmission at
different bit rates;
selecting a second peer, and a chunk of content to
download to the first peer from the second peer, wherein the
selection of the chunk of content and of the second peer from
which the chunk of content is selected is based, at least in part,
on the bit rate for which the chunk of content available from the
second peer has been encoded for transmission and the amount
of bandwidth that is available for a connection between the first
and second peer; and
downloading the selected chunk of content from the
second peer to the first peer.
2
Appeal2014-009619
Application 12/791,789
C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Brueck et al.
Wang et al.
Bachet et al.
Virdi et al.
US 2008/0195743 Al
US 2009/0282160 Al
US 2009/0300673 Al
US 2009/0300203 Al
Aug. 14,2008
Nov. 12, 2009
Dec. 3, 2009
Dec. 3, 2009
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wang, Brueck and Bachet.
Claims 4--26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wang, Brueck, Bachet, and Virdi.
II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
that Wang, in combination with Bachet and Brueck, teaches or would have
suggested:
and
upon a first peer connecting to a domain, executing a host
application that starts a peer-to-peer stack for registering the first
peer with a super peer, wherein the super peer is either a server
or a peer that stores information identifying one or more other
peers in the domain, and wherein registering the first peer with
the super peer comprises the first peer providing registration
data to the super peer that includes:
a port number to which the first peer is listening in regard
to communication of the content;
an address of the first peer; and
a domain on which the first peer is active
wherein the content is divided into a plurality of chunks
and wherein the chunks of content available from the one or more
3
Appeal2014-009619
Application 12/791,789
peers may have previously been encoded for transmission at
different bit rates;
selecting a second peer, and a chunk of content to
download to the first peer from the second peer, wherein the
selection of the chunk of content and of the second peer from
which the chunk of content is selected is based, at least in part,
on the bit rate for which the chunk of content available from the
second peer has been encoded for transmission and the amount
of bandwidth that is available for a connection between the first
and second peer
as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Wang
1. Wang teaches streaming in a peer-to-peer (P2P) network with
different bandwidths, with a P2P client connecting to an Edge P2P
autonomous domain. (Fig. 2 ifl56).
Bachet
2. Bachet teaches automated registration (i-fi-f 272, 273), wherein
each of the virtual peers is associated with a location, and a tracker is
associated with the locations of the virtual serving peers. (i-fi-1107, 204).
3. Bachet teaches sharing non bit-identical encrypted content in a
P2P network and using supemodes to enhance download time. (Figs. 10, 11,
i1i1 58---60).
4. Selected chunks of content are downloaded as requested from a
first peer. (i-fi-f 64, 89). Each of the peers is associated with a TCP port and
IP address. (i-f 261 ). The tracker 3 2 maintains a list of the IP addresses and
TCP port numbers. (i-f 252).
4
Appeal2014-009619
Application 12/791,789
5. Each sharable content item is divided into sections called
chunks and sub-chunks. (i-f 214 ).
Brueck
6. Brueck teaches a streamlet module configured to segment the
media content and generate a plurality of sequential streamlets, wherein an
encoding module is configured to encode each streamlet as a separate
content file. (i-f 15). The hosts can generate a plurality of streamlets having
varying bitrates - multiple streams of different rates. (Fig. 2b illustrates a
plurality of streams have varying degrees of quality and bandwidth, i1i1 52,
66, 69).
IV ANALYSIS
Appellants contend, in regards to claim limitation "executing a host
application that starts a peer-to-peer stack for registering the first peer with
a super-peer," "the first peer is a computing device on which a host
application starts a peer-to-peer stack for registering with a super-peer- not
a person. In contrast, ... Bechet thus discloses that a person can register to
participate in the P2P network service and not that a computing device
registers." (App. Br. 17-18).
Regarding claim limitation "a port number to which the first peer is
listening in regard to communication of the content," Appellants contend:
However, paragraph 252 of Bachet only teaches that "The tracker
32 preferably maintains a list of the IP address, TCP port number
for each peer 40 that has some, or all of the content item 58.
Bachet does NOT teach or suggest that registration data provided
by a first peer to a super-peer includes the port number of the first
peer.
(App. Br. 18-19).
5
Appeal2014-009619
Application 12/791,789
Appellants also contend the claim 1 limitation "an address of the first
peer" is not taught by Bechet because "[p]roviding a port and IP address to a
guide server 30 when []a peer makes a request to download a chunk of data,
as taught by Bachet, is NOT the same as providing that information as part
of registration data provided to a super-peer by a host application of a first
peer, as recited in Appellants' claim." (App. Br. 19).
Appellants further contend the claim 1 limitation "[a] domain on
which the first peer is active" is not taught by Bachet. (App. Br. 19).
Regarding the limitation:
selecting a second peer, and a chunk of content to download to
the first peer from the second peer, wherein the selection of the
chunk of content and of the second peer from which the chunk
of content is selected is based, at least in part, on the bit rate for
which the chunk of content available from the second peer has
been encoded for transmission and the amount of bandwidth that
is available for a connection between the first peer and second
peer
Appellants contend "it is apparent that Bachet explains that peer-to-peer
system 10 is capable of sharing content items that are 'non-bit identical,'
but does not mention chunks of content recorded at different bit rates."
(App. Br. 20).
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the
Examiner's rejections of the claims. We agree with the Examiner's findings,
and find no error with the Examiner's conclusion that the claims would have
been obvious over the combined teachings.
We agree with the Examiner because we give the claims their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In
6
Appeal2014-009619
Application 12/791,789
re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). However, while we
interpret claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we
nonetheless must not import limitations from the Specification into the
claims. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 1323 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (en bane) (citations omitted).
Regarding Appellants' argument that Bechet teaches a person, not a
device, registers to participate in a P2P system (App. Br. 17-18), we agree
with the Examiner's finding that Bachet' s tracker performs the function of
"executing a host application that starts a peer-to-peer stack for registering
with a super-peer" and that Bachet also teaches or at least suggests
automated registration. (Ans. 3, FF 2). We also agree with the Examiner's
reliance on Bachet' s supemodes for teaching and suggesting claim limitation
"super-peers." (FF 3).
Regarding claim limitations "registration data" that includes "a port
number" and" an address" (App. Br. 18-19), we agree with the Examiner's
reliance on Bach et' s tracker 3 2 which maintains a list of TCP port numbers
and the IP addresses (Ans. 3, FF 4).
Although Appellants argue that claim term "domain" is not taught by
Bachet (App. Br. 19), we agree with the Examiner that Appellants are
arguing the references separately (Ans. 4). We agree with the Examiner's
reliance on Wang for teaching or at least suggesting this claim term.
(Ans. 4, FF 1 ). Moreover, we find no error with the Examiner's conclusion
that the scope of the claim term "domain" covers Bachet's shareable content
item. (Ans. 4, FF 5).
Although Appellants contend Bachet does not teach selecting chunk
content by varying bitrates (App. Br. 20), we agree with the Examiner's
7
Appeal2014-009619
Application 12/791,789
reliance on Brueck's "streamlets" of varying bitrates, and not Bachet, to
teach or at least suggest "transmission at different bitrates." (Ans. 5, FF 6).
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner's obviousness rejection
of independent claim 1 over the combination of Wang, Brueck and Bachet.
Although Appellants raise additional arguments for patentability of
independent claim 14 (App. Br. 22-30), we find these arguments merely
repeat the claim language, with conclusory statements that the cited
references do not disclose or suggest the contested limitations, and then
essentially present the same arguments as those raised regarding claim 1. 1
Mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsuppmied by
factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d
1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705
(Fed. Cir. 1984); and Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, 2009 WL
2477843, slip op. at 7-8 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative), available at
http:// www. uspto. gov /web/ offices/ dcom/bpai/its/f d09004693. pdf
Therefore, we adopt the Examiner's findings and underlying reasoning
regarding claim 1, and find they similarly apply to claim 14. (Ans. 6).
Consequently, we also find no reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 14.
As Appellants have not provided separate arguments with respect to
dependent claims 2-13 and 15-2 6, we similar 1 y sustain the Examiner's
rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
1 We note system claim 14 recites functional language included in the
"wherein" clauses, where such clauses do not recite any corresponding
structure. "[A ]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device
does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468
(Fed. Cir. 1990).
8
Appeal2014-009619
Application 12/791,789
Y. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the cited prior art combinations of record.
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
9