Ex Parte Mukherjee

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 12, 2017

13671881 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 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.
13/671,881 11/08/2012 Samik Mukherjee P4961US00 9896
38834 7590 06/14/2017
WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP
1250 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, NW
SUITE 700
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, CLAYTON R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2457
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2017 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):
patentmail @ whda.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAMIK MUKHERJEE
Appeal 2017-002817
Application 13/671,8811
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—16, which are all the claims pending and on appeal in
this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Bitgravity, Inc. Br. 2.
2 Claims 17—22 were withdrawn on May 4, 2015, pursuant to a restriction
requirement.
Appeal 2017-002817
Application 13/671,881
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to increasing the efficiency of
delivering live streaming data from an edge server to multiple clients in a
content distribution network. Spec. 2:16—3:21. Specifically, an edge server
that receives requests from multiple clients can group requests together if the
requests share similar frame boundaries, where a frame is a still picture from
the group of still pictures that comprise a video stream. Spec. 5:18—6:2. For
example, a client can initially be grouped in a first group of clients that are
two seconds behind the actual live stream; however, if upon a later status
check the client has fallen five seconds behind the actual live stream, the
client can be grouped in a different group that is similarly five seconds
behind. Spec. 11:5—12. As a result of the invention, an edge server need
only access a buffer memory a single time to serve the client requests
grouped together. Spec. 6:3—11. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of grouping live streaming content by a server,
said method comprising:
receiving, by the server, a first request from a first client
device and a second request from a second client device for the
live streaming content;
determining, by the server, a first frame boundary of the
live streaming content to be delivered to said first client device;
determining, by the server, a second frame boundary of the
live streaming content to be delivered to said second client
device;
2
Appeal 2017-002817
Application 13/671,881
grouping together, by the server, the live streaming
content for said first client device and said second client device
when the first frame boundary and the second frame boundary
are determined by the server to be within a predetermined range;
accessing a single time, via the server, a memory to obtain
the live streaming content to be provided to said first client
device and said second client device; and
providing, by the server, the live streaming content to said
first client device and said second client device.
The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1—16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Dan (US 5,453,779; Sep. 26, 1995), Ishikawa (US 7,913,282 B2; Mar.
22, 2011), and Brown (US 7,859,571 Bl; Dec. 28, 2010). Final Act. 2-14.
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends neither Brown nor the other references disclose
“accessing a single time, via the server, a memory to obtain the live
streaming content to be provided to said first client device and said second
client device,” as recited in independent claim 1. Br. 4. In particular,
Appellant argues Brown discloses using multiple servers, not a single server
as claimed, to multicast live video. Id. Further, Appellant argues Ishikawa
uses multiple client buffers to provide video-on-demand services, and one
would not have modified Ishikawa’s design to use a single server. Id.
Appellant also contends it would not have been obvious to combine Brown
with Dan and Ishikawa because modifying Dan and Ishikawa to group live
streaming content would change the principle of operation of those
references. Id.
3
Appeal 2017-002817
Application 13/671,881
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. We first note the
Examiner relies on the combination of Dan and Brown to meet the claim 1
limitation “accessing a single time, via the server, a memory to obtain the
live streaming content to be provided to said first client device and said
second client device.” Ans. 3. Specifically, the Examiner finds “Dan’s
teaching of a server computer selectively instructing a client computer which
of a plurality of multicast streams to join on the basis of the respective
clients’ position in a stream . . . alongside Brown’s disclosure of multicast
delivery of ‘live’ content does teach the limitation in contention.” Id.
One cannot show obviousness by attacking references individually
when the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Merck &
Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The relevant inquiry is
whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of
ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teaching of those references.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Accordingly, Appellant’s
argument that no reference discloses the disputed feature (Br. 4) is not
persuasive. Appellant’s argument that Brown in particular does not disclose
using a single server to multicast live video because Brown uses multiple
servers (id.) is similarly not persuasive. The Examiner relies on Dan, not
Brown, for the claim 1 feature of a server that groups streaming content
together for multiple clients. See Final Act. 2—A\ Ans. 3. Further, Brown
discloses each server multicasts live video to multiple clients: “The Camera
Manager on this Video Server multicasts a stream of live video onto
network.” Brown, col. 14,11. 57—64.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that modifying
Dan and Ishikawa in view of Brown’s live streaming feature would change
the principle of operation of those references. Br. 4. First, we note the
4
Appeal 2017-002817
Application 13/671,881
Examiner proposes modifying Dan’s system to stream live content in view
of Brown, and the Examiner relies on Ishikawa solely for teaching the use of
frames to determine boundaries in streaming content. Ans. 4. Thus,
Appellant’s argument that one would not have modified Ishikawa in view of
Brown ( Br. 4) is not responsive to the Examiner’s rejection. Second, Dan
could be readily modified to serve live streaming content without changing
Dan’s principle of operation. Dan’s system operates by grouping together
multiple clients viewing the same streaming content depending on how close
together one client’s requested starting point is to the current streaming
position of other clients. See Dan, col. 1,11. 54—63; col. 3,11. 46—54.
Appellant has not shown that streaming content from a live feed, versus
from a storage location, would require forfeiting Dan’s grouping together of
requests for streaming content. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that
both Dan and Brown relate to multicast streaming and are combinable for at
least this reason. See Ans. 4.
Accordingly, on this record, we sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1 as unpatentable over Dan, Ishikawa, and Brown. We also sustain
the rejection of independent claim 8, and dependent claims 2—7 and 9-16,
which were not argued separately. See Br. 3—5.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—16.
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
5