Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 27, 2016

11772785 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2007-0779 1145
EXAMINER
LIN, JASON K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/772,785 07/02/2007
84326 7590 12/27/2016
AT & T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - Toler
ATTN: PATENT DOCKETING
ROOM 2A-207
ONE AT & T WAY
BEDMINSTER, NJ 07921
Kuo-Hui Liu
12/27/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KUO-HUI LIU and YONGDONG ZHAO
Appeal 2015-006308
Application 11/772,7851
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—10, 13—22, and 24-40. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to delivering video content.
Spec. 11. Claims 1 and 29 are illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal
and are reproduced below.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is AT&T Intellectual
Property L.L.P. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-006308
Application 11/772,785
1. A method of delivering video content, the method
comprising:
receiving, at an access system, channel selection data
from a set-top box device via a television access network, the
channel selection data indicating selection of a selected
television channel;
in response to receiving the channel selection data,
generating, at the access system, a rapid channel change request
based on the channel selection data, wherein the rapid channel
change request requests a unicast stream of the selected
television channel, and wherein a corresponding rapid channel
change request that requests a corresponding unicast stream is
generated each time a particular television channel is selected;
in response to receiving the channel selection data,
generating, at the access system, a multicast stream request
when the access system is not already serving a multicast
stream associated with the selected television channel, wherein
the multicast stream request is based on the channel selection
data;
sending the rapid channel change request from the access
system to a distribution system distinct from the access system
via a virtual local area network after receiving the channel
selection data;
when the access system is not already serving the
multicast stream associated with the selected television channel,
sending the multicast stream request to the distribution system
via a multicast virtual local area network; and
receiving, at the access system, the unicast stream from
the distribution system via the virtual local area network in
response to the rapid channel change request, the unicast stream
including video data packets associated with the selected
television channel.
29. A system to deliver video content, the system
comprising:
an access system including processing logic and memory
accessible to the processing logic, wherein the memory includes
2
Appeal 2015-006308
Application 11/772,785
instructions executable by the processing logic to perform
operations including:
receiving channel selection data from a set-top box
device via a television access network, wherein the
channel selection data includes an Internet Group
Management Protocol join request;
modifying the Internet Group Management
Protocol join request to a rapid channel change request
that requests a unicast stream of a selected television
channel;
sending the rapid channel change request to a
distribution system via a virtual local area network;
receiving the unicast stream from the distribution
system via the virtual local area network in response to
the rapid channel change request; and
when a determination indicates the access system
is not serving a multicast stream associated with the
selected television channel, sending a modified version
of the Internet Group Management Protocol join request
to the distribution system via a multicast virtual local
area network.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1—3, 6, 9, 14, 15, 19, 20, 33, 38,
and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination
of Agrawal et al. (US 2007/0143808 Al; published June 21, 2007)
(hereinafter “Agrawal”), Furlong et al. (US 2006/0235800 Al; published
Oct. 19, 2006) (hereinafter “Furlong”), and Sanchez et al. (US
2004/0090970 Al; published May 13, 2004) (hereinafter “Sanchez”).
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 4, 7, 10, 13, 16—18, 21, 22, 24—
28, 34, 36, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Agrawal, Furlong, Sanchez, and Smith et al. (US
2006/0126667 Al; published June 15, 2006) (hereinafter “Smith”).
3
Appeal 2015-006308
Application 11/772,785
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 29-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Agrawal, Furlong, and
Watanuki et al. (US 6,853,639 Bl; issued Feb. 8, 2005) (hereinafter
“Watanuki”).
(4) The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Agrawal, Furlong, Sanchez,
Smith, and Yamaguchi et al. (US 7,978,698 B2; published July 12, 2011)
(hereinafter “Yamaguchi”).
(5) The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Agrawal, Furlong,
Sanchez, Smith, and Watanuki.
(6) The Examiner rejected claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Agrawal, Furlong, Sanchez, and
Watanuki.
ANAFYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our Decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We below
address specific findings and arguments relating to each of the Examiner’s
rejections Appellants are appealing.
(1) Each time
Appellants argue the combination of Agrawal, Furlong, and Sanchez,
and Sanchez in particular, fails to teach or suggest “wherein a corresponding
rapid channel change request that requests a corresponding unicast stream is
generated each time a particular television channel is selected,” as recited in
4
Appeal 2015-006308
Application 11/772,785
claims 1, 14, and 33, and similarly (at least in relevant part) in claims 9 and
20 (emphasis added). See App. Br. 8—12; Reply Br. 2—5. Specifically,
Appellants argue Sanchez instead teaches generating signals for an access
multiplexer to remap a virtual circuit to provide requested content in
response to a channel change request — the requested content is already
present at the multiplexer and, thus, no corresponding request for a unicast
stream is generated each time a channel is selected. See Ans. 8 (citing
Sanchez H 43^14, 46, 51-58).
The Examiner finds the combination of Agrawal, Furlong, and
Sanchez teaches this disputed limitation. Ans. 56—57. As to Agrawal, the
Examiner finds it teaches generating a rapid channel change request to
obtain a unicast content stream from the video hub office (i.e., upstream) if
the access system does not already have the content stored. Ans. 56 (citing
Agrawal 41 42). As to Sanchez, the Examiner finds it teaches each time
a viewer wants to change the television channel, their set-top box sends a
request to the access node (i.e., multiplexer), which generates signals to
facilitate channel changing. Id. (citing Sanchez || 46, 51—53). The
Examiner also finds Sanchez teaches channel change logic can be located at
a different location (e.g., central office) than the processor (e.g., other than at
the access multiplexer). Id. at 57 (citing Sanchez | 54).
We agree with Appellants’ arguments that the combination, and
Sanchez in particular, fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. For
example, Sanchez’s teaching of the access multiplexer generating signals to
re-map delivered content each time a set-top box requests a channel change
does not teach or suggest, inter alia, that (i) the channel change request is
5
Appeal 2015-006308
Application 11/772,785
generated at the access system2 and (ii) a request for the unicast stream
occurs each time, regardless of whether the content already is stored at the
access system. See Sanchez || 43^44, 46, 51—58. The Examiner overly
relies on Sanchez’s teaching of an “each time” occurrence without linking
such an occurrence to the claim language or sufficiently to AgrawaTs
teachings. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1, 9, 14, 20, and 33. Nor do we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
the claims that depend from these independent claims.
(2) Internet Group Management Protocol join request
Appellants argue the combination of Agrawal, Furlong, and
Watanuki, and Watanuki in particular, fails to teach or suggest “modifying
the Internet Group Management Protocol [(“IGMP”)] join request to a rapid
channel change request that requests a unicast stream of a selected television
channel,” as recited in claim 29. App. Br. 15—16; Reply Br. 6. Appellants
argue Watanuki instead teaches that a relay device can receive an IGMP
message and rewrite the message into a JoinEmpty or Joinln message. See
App. Br. 16 (citing Watanuki Abstract; col. 8,11. 49—58). Appellants
contend the message remains an IGMP message and is not modified into a
rapid channel change request in accordance with the claim language. Id.
The Examiner finds the combination, and Agrawal and Watanuki in
particular, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 62—63; Final
Act. 51—52. As to Agrawal, the Examiner finds it teaches or suggests
receiving a type of request from the set-top box, and generating a rapid
2 The claim language requires that the request is generated at the access
system (e.g., multiplexer), rather than at the set-top box or elsewhere. See,
e.g., App. Br. 19 (reciting claim 1).
6
Appeal 2015-006308
Application 11/772,785
channel change request based on the received request. Ans. 62 (citing
Agrawal ]Hf 41 42). As to Watanuki, the Examiner finds it teaches or
suggests modifying an IGMP join request message and sending the modified
version. See id. (citing Watanuki col. 8,11. 49-58). The Examiner also finds
the claim language “does not exclude the message remaining an IGMP
message.” Id. at 63.
We are not apprised of Examiner err. We agree with the Examiner’s
findings, and adopt them as our own, that the combination of references
teaches or suggests the disputed element. See Agrawal ]Hf 41—42; Watanuki
col. 8,11. 49—58. Furthermore, we agree that the claim language does not
preclude the modified IGMP message remaining in IGMP form.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 29, as well as
claims 30-32, which were not separately argued.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 1—10, 13—22,
24—28, and 33^10.
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 29—32.
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
7