Ex Parte Leinonen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2016

12998414 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/998,414 05/16/2011
27799 7590 06/17/2016
Cozen O'Connor
277 Park A venue, 20th floor
NEW YORK, NY 10172
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Antti Leinonen
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.
5292-38PUS-299076.000 6398
EXAMINER
GREENE, JOSEPH L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2452
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2016 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):
patentsecretary@cozen.com
patentdocket@cozen.com
patentsorter@cozen.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
U-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTTI LEINONEN
Appeal2014-006004
Application 12/99 8,414
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and NORMAN
H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 14--26. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to streaming media in changing wireless
conditions. Abstract. Claim 14, reproduced below, is exemplary of the
matter on appeal:
1 The real party in interest is identified as Teliasonera AB. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-006004
Application 12/99 8,414
14. A method for streaming media playback, the method
compnsmg:
receiving a media data stream by a terminal device via a
wireless connection;
buffering the received media data stream;
playing back the buffered media data stream by the
terminal device; and
altering a speed of the playback of the buffered media data
stream,
wherein the altering of the speed of the playback of the
buffered media data stream comprises:
slowing down the speed of the playback of the buffered
media data stream a) in response to the wireless connection
becoming unavailable to the terminal device, orb) in response to
a signal strength of the wireless connection experienced by the
terminal device falling below a first predetermined threshold
value, and
wherein the altering of the speed of the playback of the
buffered media data stream is performed in connection with a
handover from one network to another network providing the
wireless connection to the terminal device.
App. Br. 10 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claims 14--18, 20-24, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Harris et al. (US 2007/0091920 Al; publ. Apr. 26,
2007) ("Harris"). Final Act. 2--4.
Claims 19 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Harris in view of Krikorian et al. (US 2006/0095472 Al;
publ. May 4, 2006) ("Krikorian"). Final Act. 5.
2
Appeal2014-006004
Application 12/99 8,414
ANALYSIS
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Rejection
Appellant argues the method of claim 14 "is implemented in a user's
local terminal device, and relates to a buffered media stream that is being
played back on the local terminal device" and "it is within or by the local
user terminal device that the playback speed of the buffered media stream is
altered." App. Br. 4. In contrast, Appellant argues Harris teaches "reducing,
or otherwise altering, the speed or bitrate of transmission of a data stream."
Id. According to Appellant:
Harris provides a system in which a high bit rate media
transmission or feed is terminated in the presence of consistently
poor radio frequency (RF) operating conditions, i.e., the high bit
rate media feed transmission is replaced with a lower bit rate
media feed transmission. This teaching of a speed reduction
relates solely to the speed of transmission of data. For example,
paragraph [0019] of Harris explains that the content server (104)
determines where to supply (feed) the media, and that this
content server (104) also receives and evaluates operating
conditions. Harris teaches processing that is performed at the
transmission or supply side of the system. Appellant's claimed
method, on the other hand, is performed at the local reception
side of the network, and alters the playback speed of buffered
data already present on the local terminal device. Harris fails to
teach or suggest the expressly-recited subject matter of
Appellant's independent claims 14, 20 and 26.
App. Br. 5---6.
The Examiner finds Harris anticipates claims 14, 20, and 26. Final
Act. 2-3 (citing i-fi-f 10, 11, 12, 15, and 23). The Examiner finds, even if
Harris only teaches altering the speed on the transmission side, "the claim
does not require that the altering of the playback speed is taking place at the
local device" as the claimed limitations "only require that the media stream
3
Appeal2014-006004
Application 12/99 8,414
is altered." Ans. 6. Regarding the "buffering" limitation, the Examiner
determines the "limitations only require that the playback speed is altered
and that at some point, the media stream is buffered." Id. at 7. The
Examiner further finds claim 5 of Harris explicitly states that it alters the
playback speed of the buffer. Id.
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument the claim limitation
"altering a speed of the playback of the buffered media data stream" is
performed at the terminal device. App. Br. 4--5; Reply Br. 1-3. We agree
the Examiner's interpretation is unreasonable and overbroad. In addition,
the Examiner's interpretation is not consistent with the Specification.
Claim terms in a patent application are given the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, as understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
However, great care should be taken to avoid reading limitations of the
Specification into the claims. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d
1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Notwithstanding the above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner's
anticipation rejection is in error. While Harris does teach processing
performed at the transmission side (App. Br. 5 discussed supra), Harris also
teaches processing at the terminal side. See, for example, Harris i-f 15: "the
rate of a play-out buffer at the mobile station of the end user may be slowed"
(emphasis added); claim 5. Thus, Harris discloses the limitation as
interpreted by Appellant.
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 14 and
independent claims 20 and 26 as these claims are argued together with claim
4
Appeal2014-006004
Application 12/99 8,414
1. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-13, 15-18, and 21-
26 as these claims are not argued separately.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection
Appellant relies on the same arguments considered above regarding
anticipation and presents no additional arguments of non-obviousness. App.
Br. 8. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 19 and 25.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 14--26.
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
5