Ex Parte Matarese et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 4, 2017

10639006 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 4, 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.
10/639,006 08/11/2003 Joseph Matarese 9534 (FSP0292) 6005
88095 7590 04/06/2017
ARRTS2 F.ntp.mrisp.s T ! C
EXAMINER
(FSP)
3871 Lakefield Drive
BANTAMOI, ANTHONY
Suwanee, GA 30024 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2423
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/06/2017 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):
ARRIS .docketing @ arrisi.com
mirho@fspllc.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH MATARESE, ANDREW POOLE, and
GEORGE SCOTT PINSON
Appeal 2016-005575
Application 10/639,0061
Technology Center 2400
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 45—53, which constitute the only pending claims.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to provisioning a Video-On-Demand server.
Abstract; Spec. 1:24 to 2:5. Claim 45 is exemplary of the matter on appeal
(disputed limitations emphasized):
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is ARRIS Enterprises,
Inc. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-005575
Application 10/639,006
45. A video-on-demand server, comprising:
a plurality of interface modules, each interface module providing
a communication interface between the video-on-demand server and a
switching network;
an interface to a management module, the management module
adapted to monitor and provide to the video-on-demand server
information on video-on-demand bandwidth utilization of network
resources allocated to particular service groups, each service group
comprising a plurality of video-on-demand customers sharing a same
fixed network bandwidth allocation;
each interface module communicatively coupled to a plurality of
service groups simultaneously via a plurality of service gateways;
a total bandwidth of the server is an aggregate bandwidth of all
the interface modules, and is less than an aggregate bandwidth of all
service groups assigned to be serviced by the server, the switching
network configured to make the server available for receiving video on
demand service requests from all of the service group customers
simultaneously,
the server adapted to dynamically assign bandwidth of the server
to service groups, by adapting the switching network to dynamically
change communication connections between interface modules and
service groups, the adaptations to the switching network based upon
information about the bandwidth utilization of network resources
received from the management module.
Br. 12 (Claims App.).
THE REJECTION
Claims 45—532 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sheeran (US 6,909,726 Bl; iss. June 21, 2005), McHale et
2The heading (Final Act. 2) does not expressly identify claims 45—53 but the
context is clear that claims 45—53 are rejected over the identified references.
See Final Act. 2—5.
2
Appeal 2016-005575
Application 10/639,006
al. (US 6,014,431; iss. Jan. 11, 200) (“McHale”), and Li et al. (US 6,543,053
Bl; iss. Apr. 1, 2003). Final Act. 2—5.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Sheeran, McHale, and
Li teach the claim 45 limitation:
a total bandwidth of the server is an aggregate bandwidth of all the
interface modules, and is less than an aggregate bandwidth of all
service groups assigned to be serviced by the server, the switching
network configured to make the server available for receiving video on
demand service requests from all of the service group customers
simultaneously.
Br. 9-11.
According to Appellants:
Sheeran teaches that a video server multiplexes many streams into a
communication to a service node. Different service nodes receive
different multiplexes. Sheeran's conservative and conventional
approach is to match the bandwidth of the server to the potential
demands of the customers. McHale describes limiting the number of
subscribers that can connect to the server at a time through the
switching network to a number m that the server can handle. The
present invention is not designed this way. The present invention
oversubscribes the server by deliberately making it possible for more
subscribers than the server can handle to simultaneously make requests
with the server. This creates a real risk, by design, that the server will
simply fail to meet the demands placed upon it. McHale handles this
situation by essentially creating a choke point in the switching network,
so that no more subscribers can reach the server simultaneously than
the server can handle. Although this suggests a server that is
underpowered, it does not suggest underpowering the server by design,
but rather that if subscriber demands come to exceed server capability
(for example, a server becomes insufficient due to subscriber growth),
the network itself may be operated to prevent the server from receiving
excess demand requests.
3
Appeal 2016-005575
Application 10/639,006
Id. at 9.
Appellants argue “there is no obvious suggestion in Sheeran that the
server should be deliberately underpowered relative to the potential demands
it might have to meet from customers” and “should this situation undesirably
arise, any mitigation suggested by McHale involves protecting the server
from ever receiving excess demand requests.” Br. 10. Appellants further
argue, in contrast to Sheeran and McHale,
[t]he present application . . . deliberately assumes the risk that
service requests reaching the server will be denied due to
deliberately mismatching server capacity and potential demand,
and mitigates this risk through intelligent and flexible rerouting
of requests to different service modules of the server by altering
the switching fabric connecting the server to the customers.
Id.
The Examiner finds the combination of Sheeran, McHale, and Li
teaches the limitations of claim 45. Final Act. 9—10; Ans. 6—9. Regarding
the disputed limitation, the Examiner finds “Sheeran teaches the switching
network is configured to make the server available to all service group
customers simultaneously via a plurality of service gateways (fig. 1 (all
service nodes are connected to the remultiplexer and server simultaneously
nodes meets ‘gateways’)).” Final Act. 3. The Examiner additionally finds
“Li teaches servers capable of handling simultaneous user requests (col. 1,
II. 42-51) which meets ‘receiving video on demand service requests from all
of the service group customers simultaneously.’” Id at 4.
The Examiner finds McHale teaches the disputed limitation a total
bandwidth of the server is an aggregate bandwidth of all the interface
modules, and is less than an aggregate bandwidth of all service groups
assigned to be serviced by the server. Final Act. 3—4\ see also Ans. 6—9. In
4
Appeal 2016-005575
Application 10/639,006
particular, the Examiner finds McHale teaches oversubscription of the server
and assigning bandwidth by adapting the switching network to dynamically
change communication connections between interface modules and service
groups for the benefit of increasing the number of subscribers without
increasing the cost of operation. Final Act. 3^4 (citing McHale Fig. 4; 11:56
to 12:27; 6:18-28).
Regarding Appellants’ argument “should this situation
[oversubscription] undesirably arise, any mitigation suggested by McHale
involves protecting the server from ever receiving excess demand requests
[choking the server],” the Examiner “disagrees because McHale’s method
of handling high bandwidth applications will allow Sheeran to accommodate
many more subscribers without the need for additional bandwidth in the
Sheeran system.” Ans. 9.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding the limitation
the switching network configured to make the server available for receiving
video on demand service requests from all of the service group customers
simultaneously. While the Examiner relies on the teachings of Sheeran and
Li for this limitation, supra, the Examiner does not address how this finding
is consistent with McHale’s teaching of oversubscription and choking the
server wherein the server is protected from receiving excess demand
requests (does not receive service requests from all of the service group
customers simultaneously). Therefore, based on the record, because McHale
teaches limiting service requests to the server, the combination of the
teachings of Sheeran, McHale, and Li suggested by the Examiner would not
result in the claimed invention, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art.
5
Appeal 2016-005575
Application 10/639,006
The Examiner presents insufficient findings as required for
obviousness. In particular, the Examiner’s findings do not set forth
sufficient facts to teach the limitation to make the server available for
receiving video on demand service requests from all of the service group
customers simultaneously. As stated by the Supreme Court, the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection must be based on “some articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”
KSRInt’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
In view of the above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 45, and
independent claims 51 and 52. We also do not sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 46—50 and 53. Cf. In reFritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed.
Cir. 1992) (“[Djependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims
from which they depend are nonobvious . . . .”). Because our decision with
regard to the disputed limitation is dispositive of the rejection of these
claims, we do not address additional arguments raised by Appellants.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 45—53.
REVERSED
6