Ex Parte MargaritisDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 30, 201612172661 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/172,661 7590 Georgios Margaritis 370 Verano Drive Los Altos, CA 94022 07/14/2008 07/01/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR GEORGIOS MARGARITIS 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. 5386 EXAMINER ALAM, MUSHFIKH I ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2426 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 07/01/2016 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 GEORGIOS MARGARITIS Appeal2015-001854 Application 12/172,661 Technology Center 2400 Before HUNG H. BUI, JON M. JURGOVAN, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 26-41. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 1 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed July 14, 2008 ("Spec."), the Final Office Action mailed Oct. 31, 2013 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed May 15, 2014 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer mailed Sept. 17, 2014 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed Nov. 13, 2014 ("Reply Br."). Appeal2015-001854 Application 12/172,661 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims are directed to broadcasting content requested by clients from a broadcaster's server using a replicating device. (Spec. Abstract.) Claim 26, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 26. A broadcast method in a network comprising the steps of: (i) a plurality of client devices, operated by clients, connected to the network, request, directly or indirectly, a same broadcast content from a server, operated by a broadcaster, connected to the network, (ii) each client being identified by client identifying means, (iii) the broadcaster identifying at least one network operator operating a replicating device, (iv) the server sending at least one broadcast stream of the requested same broadcast content, over a specific time interval, to the replicating device, (v) the replicating device automatically receiving the incoming broadcast stream, replicating the incoming broadcast stream and retransmiting [sic] it to each one of the plurality of client devices, within said specific time interval. (App. Br. 21- Claims App'x.) REJECTIONS Claims 26-28, 32-36, and 38--41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Tsukidate (US 2004/0064832 Al, Apr. 1, 2004). (Final Act. 2---6.) Claims 29 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Tsukidate and Ellis (US 2007/0157281 Al, July 5, 2007). (Final Act. 6-7.) Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Tsukidate and Mueller (US 2006/0184977 Al, Aug. 17, 2006). (Final Act. 7.) Claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Tsukidate and Pfeffer (US 8,094,658 B2, Jan. 10, 2012). (Final Act. 7-8.) 2 Appeal2015-001854 Application 12/172,661 ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 U.S. C. § 102(b) "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). To establish anticipation, every element and limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Independent Claim 26 Appellant argues limitation (i) of claim 26 distinguishes over Tsukidate's user devices because user terminals (client devices) do not request the same broadcast content from a server. (App. Br. 13-14 citing Tsukidate i-fi-168, 69, Figs. 1, 2; Reply Br. 2-3.) Instead, Appellant argues Tsukidate's center device allocates content to user terminals (client devices) and edge servers based on information obtained from contracts with users, which fails to disclose the claimed feature. (Id.) We do not agree with Appellant's argument. The Examiner correctly notes that during a trial period, the center device collects usage information on content requested by users. (Ans. 3--4 citing Tsukidate i-fi-169, 70.) A person of ordinary skill would realize, based on what is described in Tsukidate, that requests from user terminals would include in some cases requests for the same content. Tsukidate's reference to 'popular contents' implies as much, for content is popular only if multiple users are requesting the same content. Appellant also argues limitation (iv) of claim 26 distinguishes over Tsukidate, in which popular programs (content) are stored in edge servers 3 Appeal2015-001854 Application 12/172,661 and user terminals, and are accessed from these stored locations by users. (App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 3.) Unlike the claimed invention, Appellant argues Tsukidate's programs are not sent by a server to a replicating device in response to client device requests. (Id.) Contrary to Appellant's argument, however, claim 26 does not recite that a server broadcasts content to a replicating device in response to user requests. 2 Thus, Appellant's argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim as written, and is unpersuasive to show Examiner error. Appellant further argues limitation (v) of claim 26 distinguishes over Tsukidate, which has no replicating device that automatically receives a broadcast stream from a server, replicates it, and retransmits it to a plurality of client devices. (App. Br. 14--15 citing Tsukidate i-f 68; Reply Br. 3--4.) Instead, Appellant argues Tsukidate stores popular contents in edge servers and user terminals accessible by users. (Id.) We find Appellant's argument unpersuasive to show Examiner error. As the Examiner notes, Tsukidate relocates content among an archive server, edge server, and user terminal, according to content popularity. (Ans. 6 citing Tsukidate i-fi-167-71.) This includes a "shelf keeping" operation that moves content from upstream servers to downstream servers. (See Tsukidate i-f 70.) Tsukidate's Figure 1 shows upstream and downstream servers including the archive server and edge servers. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that contents moved from one server to another could be streamed, which Tsukidate mentions in regard to 2 We note in the event of further prosecution Appellant may amend the claims to add such a limitation if supported by the Specification under 3 5 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. 4 Appeal2015-001854 Application 12/172,661 transmitting content from an edge server to a user terminal. (See Tsukidate ,-r 4.) Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs. CENTER DEVICE VIEWING . RESULTS _ ; GOLLECTfON ! PART ,3 ... LLLLLLLLL~LL ..... LL~ VIEWING : RESULTS I ANAL\'S:S PART CONTENTS ALLOCATiON COtJTROI. PART ,5 PORTAL CREATION PART I CONTENTS PmCE I OEllVERY DECISIOr< MANAGEMENT PART ; PART \'-------' "asus LLLLLLLLLLHH••••••••••••••••••••••-·------ FIG. 1 12 USER TERMINAL Tsukidate Figure 1 shows a center device, archive server, edge server, and user terminals connected together. The Examiner also notes with regard to limitation (v) of claim 26 that the claimed "specific time interval" can be interpreted as Tsukidate's initial trial period for testing content popularity, or any periodic update interval. 3 3 We note that claim 26 does not recite that these actions by the broadcast server and retransmitting device occur simultaneously or at substantially the same time. For example, the broadcast server can transmit a stream during a first part of the specific time interval, and the replicating device can transmit a stream during a second, non-overlapping part of the same time interval. We also note in passing that claim 26 does not recite that the broadcast server transmits the client identifying means to the replicating device for use in retransmitting the broadcast stream to the client devices. We further note that the claim does not set forth what the replicating device is and where it is located in the network system. 5 Appeal2015-001854 Application 12/172,661 (Ans. 6.) We agree with the Examiner's assessment, and find no error in the Examiner's findings of anticipation under§ 102 with regard to claim 26. Independent Claim 38 Appellant argues limitation (i) of claim 38 distinguishes over Tsukidate, which has user terminals (client devices) that do not request the same broadcast content from Tsukidate's center device. (App. Br. 16-17 citing Tsukidate i-fi-167----69, Fig. 2.) Instead, Appellant argues Tsukidate's center device allocates content to user terminals and edge servers based on information obtained from contracts with users. This argument is the same as presented for limitation (i) of claim 26. For the reasons explained, we do not find this argument persuasive of Examiner error. Appellant argues limitation (iii) of claim 38 distinguishes over Tsukidate. (App. Br. 17 citing Tsukidate i-fi-169-70.) Specifically, Appellant argues Tsukidate' s statement that "after collecting data from a trial period, new popular programs are sent to the edge servers," cannot be interpreted as the claimed "second time interval." Appellant argues the word "after" in this statement has an open-ended meaning and thus does not denote a time interval. We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive. Tsukidate discloses repetition of the steps including determining popularity of contents during a trial period, relocating contents among the archive server, edge servers, and client devices according to the results of the trial period, and providing access to the contents during a service period. (See Tsukidate i169, particularly the last sentence.) Repeating content trial and service periods implies that both are close-ended time intervals, contrary to Appellant's argument (one could not repeat that which does not end). 6 Appeal2015-001854 Application 12/172,661 Appellant argues limitation (iv) of claim 38 distinguishes over Tsukidate, in which popular programs are content that are stored in edge servers and user terminals, and are accessed from these stored locations by users. (App. Br. 17-18 citing Tsukidate i-fi-168-70.) Appellant also argues Tsukidate does not disclose an incoming broadcast stream sent by a server, received by a replicating device, replicated and sent in multiple copies to client devices that have requested it. This argument is essentially the same as that presented for (v) of claim 26, which we found unpersuasive for the reasons stated. Independent Claim 40 Appellants argue claim 40 on the same basis as the previous claims. For the stated reasons, we do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive to show error with regard to the Examiner's rejection of claim 40. Remaining Claims No separate arguments are presented for the remaining claims. Accordingly, these claims fall with their respective independent claims. (See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv).) DECISION We affirm the rejection of claims 26-28, 32-36, and 38--41under35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We affirm the rejection of claims 29-31 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation