Ex Parte Lipton

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 28, 2007

10407437 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 28, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is not binding
precedent of the Board.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