Ex Parte Luby et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 24, 2017

12887483 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 2017)

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.
12/887,483 09/21/2010 Michael G. Luby 093405U3 2593
23696 7590 07/26/2017
OTTAT mMM TNmRPORATFD
EXAMINER
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
LEE, BRYAN Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/26/2017 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL G. LUBY, MARK WATSON,
LORENZO VICISANO, PAYAM PAKZAD, and BIN WANG
Appeal 2017-0025361
Application 12/887,483
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1 and 9—22, which are all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Qualcomm
Incorporated. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2017-002536
Application 12/887,483
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, Appellants’ invention “relates to
improved media streaming systems and methods, [and] more particularly to
systems and methods that are adaptive to network and buffer conditions in
order to optimize a presentation of streamed media and allows for efficient
concurrent, or timely-distributed, delivery of streamed media data.”
(September 21, 2010 Specification (“Spec.”) 115.) Claim 1 is illustrative,
and is reproduced below (with minor reformatting):
1. In a communication system wherein a client device receives
blocks of media from one or more media ingestion systems, a
method comprising:
identifying, at the client device, an amount of media
stored in a buffer for storing received blocks of media
prior to being consumed by an output of the client device;
identifying, at the client device, a rate of
consumption of the media at the output of the client
device;
determining a rate of change of the amount of the
media stored in the buffer; and
determining, for a plurality of block requests
corresponding to blocks of the media being consumed by
the output of the client device, a block to request and a
timing of the request,
wherein the block to request is determined
based upon the amount of the media stored in the
buffer and the rate of change of the amount of the
media stored in the buffer and
the timing of the request is determined based
upon the amount of the media stored in the buffer
and the rate of change of the amount of the media
stored in the buffer, wherein the timing of the
request is associated with a time at which a request
for a new block will be made.
2
Appeal 2017-002536
Application 12/887,483
Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal
The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Kawai et al. (“Kawai”) US 2003/0009579 Al Jan. 9, 2003
Srikantan et al.
(“Srikantan”) US 7,073,191 B2 July 4, 2006
Hejna et al. (“Hejna”) US 7,100,188 B2 Aug. 29, 2006
Toumura et al.
(“Toumura”) US 2006/0248195 Al Nov. 2, 2006
Wayda et al. (“Wayda”) US 2007/0185973 Al Aug. 9, 2007
Shapiro US 2008/0281943 Al Nov. 13, 2008
Morrow et al. (“Morrow”) US 2009/0019229 Al Jan. 15,2009
Westerlund et al.
(“Westerlund”) US 2010/0023525 Al Jan. 28, 2010
Huang US 2010/0174823 Al July 8, 2010
Yoo et al. (“Yoo”) US 2010/0318632 Al Dec. 16, 2010
Shen et al. (“Shen”) US 7,895,629 B1 Feb. 22,2011
Rowitch et al. (“Rowitch”) US 2013/0002483 Al Jan. 3, 2013
Claims 1, 15, 16, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hejna, Srikantan, Kawai, and Shen. (See Final
Office Action (mailed February 1, 2016) (“Final Act.”) 3—12.)
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hejna, Srikantan, Kawai, Shen, Huang, and Shapiro. (See
Final Act. 12—14.)
3
Appeal 2017-002536
Application 12/887,483
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hejna, Srikantan, Kawai, Shen, Toumura, and Rowitch.
(See Final Act. 14—16.)
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hejna, Srikantan, Kawai, Shen, and Yoo. (See Final Act.
16-17.)
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hejna, Srikantan, Kawai, Shen, Yoo, and Wayda. (See
Final Act. 18.)
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hejna, Srikantan, Kawai, Shen, Yoo, and Wayda. (See
Final Act. 18—19.)
Claims 17 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hejna, Srikantan, Kawai, Shen, and Toumura. (See Final
Act. 19-21.)
Claims 18 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hejna, Srikantan, Kawai, Shen, and Westerlund. (See
Final Act. 21—22.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims on appeal.
With respect to independent claim 1, the claim recites “wherein the
block to request is determined based upon the amount of the media stored in
4
Appeal 2017-002536
Application 12/887,483
the buffer and the rate of change of the amount of the media stored in the
buffer(Emphases added.) The Examiner finds that “Hejna discloses
adjusting consumption of the buffer rather that adjusting requests to fill the
buffer, when a buffer mismatch condition is detected.” (Ans. 3; Final Act.
4.) According to the Examiner,
Srikantan discloses adjusting the requests to fill a media
buffer by changing the timing of the requests and/or adjusting the
amount of data of each request [and that cjhanging the amount
of data to request effectively teaches determining the blocks of
data to request. Therefore, it is the combination of art that
teaches the disputed aspect of the invention.
(Ans. 3; Final Act. 4.) Appellants contend that Hejna does not “disclose[] a
rate of change of the amount of media stored in the buffers.” (Reply 3;
App. Br. 7—8.) Therefore, according to Appellants, the request is not based
upon the rate of change of the amount of the media stored in the buffer.
We have reviewed the portions of Hejna cited by the Examiner and
agree with Appellants that the cited portions of Hejna cited by the Examiner
do not teach or suggest “a rate of change of the amount of media stored in
the buffers. At most, they discuss determining the existence of a mismatch
condition.” (Reply 3.) The Examiner does not explain how the combination
of Hejna and Srikantan teaches or suggests a determination “based upon . . .
the rate of change of the amount of the media stored in the buffer.” (Ans. 4.)
Specifically, the Examiner does not explain how the “mismatch between
data arrival and consumption^ which] eventually result in over filled buffers
or an under filled buffer” (Ans. 3—4), relates to “a rate of change of the
amount of media stored in the buffers.”
For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded of Examiner error in the
rejection of claim 1 and do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim
5
Appeal 2017-002536
Application 12/887,483
l.2 Independent claims 15 and 19 contain a similar limitation at issue and
the Examiner cites to Hejna for the limitation and makes similar findings.
(Final Act. 5 (regarding claim 1), 9 (regarding claim 15), 12 (regarding
claim 19).) Thus, for the same reason, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejections of independent claims 15 and 19, as well as claims 9-14, 16—18,
and 20-22, which depend from either independent claim 1, 15, or 19.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 9—22.
REVERSED
2 Because we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons
discussed herein, we need not address Appellants’ further arguments. See
Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an
administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a single
dispositive issue”).
6