Ex Parte LiptonDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 28, 200710407437 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 28, 2007) Copy Citation The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is not binding precedent of the Board. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte DANIEL I. LIPTON ____________ Appeal 2007-2088 Application 10/407,437 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Decided: September 28, 2007 ____________ Before LEE E. BARRETT, ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, and ALLEN R. MACDONALD, Administrative Patent Judges. GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Lipton (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1 through 5, 8, 9, 11 through 14, 18, and 20 through 30, which are all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appellant's invention relates generally to a method and apparatus for transferring media data from a media server application to a media client Appeal 2007-2088 Application 10/407,437 application. (See Specification 1-2). Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as follows: 1. A computer system comprising: a) a media server application for producing media data, wherein the media data has a plurality of segments, b) a media client application for processing media data, c) a media-server interface for allowing the media client application to receive the plurality segments of the media data from the media server application, the media-server interface for directing the server application to successively store each segment in the location that is accessible by the media client, wherein the server application stores each segment in a format that is comprehensible to the media client application, and the media client application retrieves each segment from the location before the server application stores another segment to the location. The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are: Eylon US 2001/0037399 A1 Nov. 01, 2001 Dietz US 2003/0112258 A1 Jun. 19, 2003 (filed Dec. 13, 2001) Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claims 26 through 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dietz. 2 Appeal 2007-2088 Application 10/407,437 Claims 1 through 5, 8, 9, 11 through 14, 18, 20 through 251, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dietz in view of Eylon. We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed January 31, 2007) and to Appellant's Brief (filed October 26, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed April 9, 2007) for the respective arguments. SUMMARY OF DECISION As a consequence of our review, we will reverse both the indefiniteness rejection of claim 30 and also the obviousness rejections of claims 1 through 5, 8, 9, 11 through, 14, 18, and 20 through 30. OPINION The Examiner asserts (Answer 4) that claim 30 is indefinite because the phrase "video data" lacks antecedent basis. We disagree. The phrase video data clearly refers to a portion of the media data, where the next segment of media data is video data. The skilled artisan would have no trouble understanding the meaning of claim 30. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. The Examiner asserts (Answer 5) that Dietz discloses a media server application, a media client application, and a media server interface running on a computer, as recited in claim 26. Appellant contends (Br. 21) that Dietz 1 Though the Examiner omitted claim 25 from the statement of the rejection (Answer 7), the Examiner included it in the explanation of the rejection (Answer 13). Also, Appellant responded to a rejection of claim 25 (Br. 31). Thus, we will treat claim 25 as being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 3 Appeal 2007-2088 Application 10/407,437 fails to disclose a media server interface that directs the server application and also the media server and client applications and media server interface on a single computer. The issues are 1) whether Dietz teaches or suggests a media client application, a media server application, and a media server interface on a single computer, and 2) whether Dietz teaches or suggests the claimed media server interface. Dietz shows in Figure 1 a plurality of client computers and a server communicating over a network. Dietz discloses (paragraph [0011]) that the purpose of the invention is an improved method for receiving media streams broadcast over the Internet. Further, Dietz discloses (paragraph [0024]) that network data processing system 100 includes server 104 and clients 108, 110, and 112, wherein server 104 provides data such as media data streams to the client computers. Thus, Dietz does not teach a server application and a client application on the same computer, as recited in claim 26. As the Examiner has provided no explanation as to why it might have been obvious to combine the server and client applications on the same computer, and we have found no teaching or suggestion to do so in Dietz, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 26 over Dietz.2 For claims 27 and 28, the Examiner admits that Dietz does not expressly disclose that the server application generates media data segments successively. However, the Examiner asserts that since "data streams inherently imply an order of segments" it would have been obvious to process the segments successively to replay the segments in order. Appellant contends (Br. 26) that Dietz merely discloses streaming data 2 We need not reach the issue of whether Dietz discloses a media server interface, as recited in claim 26, since the first issue is dispositive. 4 Appeal 2007-2088 Application 10/407,437 generally, not storing successive segments to the same location in response to a get-data command. The issue is whether Dietz teaches or suggests successively using a get-data command to successively direct the media server to store media segments in the same location. Dietz repeatedly refers to the storage of a media data stream. Nowhere does Dietz discuss generating media data segments. Accordingly, nowhere does Dietz discuss generating and storing data segments successively. Further, although Dietz discloses (paragraph [0036]) that the user enters a start and stop time, Dietz does not mention using a get-data command repeatedly. As to the Examiner's assertions, a disclosure of a data stream does not suggest a series of data segments. Consequently we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 27 and 28 over Dietz. For independent claim 1, the Examiner (Answer 8) sets forth the same explanation that we found to be deficient supra regarding storing data segments successively. Further, regarding independent claims 1 and 11, the Examiner admits (Answer 8) that Dietz does not expressly disclose that the media client retrieves each segment before another segment is written to the location. However, the Examiner asserts (Answer 8) that Eylon discloses that frames of video may be delivered and executed before downloading is complete. Thus, according to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to download and execute segments of media data before the entire media file is completely downloaded to allow the data frames to be displayed as a real- time full motion video. Appellant contends (Br. 11-12) that neither Dietz nor Eylon teaches or suggests a media client retrieving each segment before the media server generates and stores the next segment. Accordingly, the issue is whether the combination of Dietz and Eylon suggests a media client 5 Appeal 2007-2088 Application 10/407,437 retrieving each segment before the media server generates and stores the next segment. The Examiner's reliance on Eylon appears to be solely for the disclosure in paragraph [0010] that for audio and video information, a linear stream of frames can be sent from a server to a client rather than a complete video file such that each frame can be displayed as it arrives rather than having to wait for the entire file to arrive. This disclosure of Eylon at best suggests that a video stream can be sent as a series of frames, or data segments, and that video frames can be viewed while subsequent frames are being sent to the client. However, Eylon does not disclose that a data segment must be retrieved by the client before the next data segment is generated and stored. Further, Dietz discloses sending a data stream, not segments, to the client. Therefore, we find no teaching or suggestion for the client to retrieve a data segment prior to the server generating and storing the next data segment. Consequently, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 and their dependents, claims 2 through 5, 8, 9, 12 through 14, and 18. Independent claim 20, like claim 26, recites a media server application, media client application, and media server interface on a single computer. As explained supra, Dietz discloses separate computers for the client and server applications. Further, Eylon does not cure this deficiency as Eylon also discloses separate computers for the client and server. (See, for example, Figure 1.) Therefore, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 20 nor its dependents, claims 21 through 25. Lastly, the Examiner rejects claims 29 and 30 over the combination of Dietz and Eylon. Claims 29 and 30 depend from claim 27. We found supra 6 Appeal 2007-2088 Application 10/407,437 that Dietz fails to disclose successively utilizing a get-data command to successively direct the server application to store media segments. The limited disclosure of Eylon that relates to transfer of media data from a server to a client does not remedy the deficiency of Dietz. Therefore, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 29 and 30 over Dietz and Eylon. ORDER The decision of the Examiner rejecting claim 30 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 and claims 1 through 5, 8, 9, 11 through 14, 18, and 20 through 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. 7 Appeal 2007-2088 Application 10/407,437 REVERSED eld ADELI LAW GROUP, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 1875 CENTURY PARK EAST SUITE 1360 LOS ANGELE,S CA 90067 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation