Ex Parte Nilsson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 7, 2016

13997474 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/997,474 06/24/2013
23117 7590 09/09/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Erling Nilsson
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.
RYM-36-2464 8884
EXAMINER
MONTOYA,OSCHTAI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/09/2016 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL ERLING NILSSON,
STEPHEN CLIFFORD APPLEBY,
RORY STEWART TURNBULL,
and IAN BARRY CRABTREE
Appeal2015-004956
Application 13/997 ,4 7 4
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
TTT T1'. Jr A. T""ti. ' 1 • • , , • T'lo , , T 1
l\._LJlVlAK, Aamznzsrranve rarem Juage.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-004956
Application 13/997,474
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-3, 8, 9, and 11. Claims 4--7 and 10 have been indicated to contain
allowable subject matter. Final Act. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed November 3, 2014, Reply
Brief ("Reply Br.") filed March 30, 2015, the Final Office Action ("Final
Act.") mailed May 15, 2014, and the Answer ("Ans.") mailed February 3,
2015, for the respective details.
The Invention
The invention relates to a method and system for the determination of
data transfer rates required for the streaming of variable bit rate encoded
video data over a network. In some embodiments the determined data
transfer rates are then used to select a video quality to be provided over the
network for reproduction. Spec. 1 :5-8.
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal, with emphasis added to the disputed
limitations, reads as follows:
1. A method for delivering encoded content data over a
network, the content data being encoded at one or more quality
levels, the method comprising:
determining one or more respective data rates required
to deliver the encoded content data at the one or more quality
levels; and
selecting a quality level for delivery in dependence on at
least the one or more determined respective data rates;
2
Appeal2015-004956
Application 13/997,474
the method being characterised in that the determining of
a data rate for a particular quality level comprises:
being provided with pre-calculated data defining one or
more critical points on a decoding schedule of the encoded data
at the particular quality level, the critical points being points at
which a piecewise monotonic decreasing-constant bit rate
delivery schedule required to deliver the encoded content data
so that buff er underflow does not occur is equal to the decoding
schedule; and
when actual delivery of the encoded content data is ahead
of the constant bit rate delivery schedule, calculating the data
rate required for delivery of remaining encoded data at the
particular quality level in dependence on at least the critical
points on the decoding schedule.
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1-3, 8, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Biderman (US 2010/0169303 Al, July 1, 2010) in
view of Lai (Hin-lun Lai et al., A Monotonic-Decreasing Rate Scheduler For
Variable-Bitrate Video Streaming, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and
Systems for Video Technology, Vol. 15, No. 2, 221-231(Feb.2005)). Final
Act. 3-5.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Biderman teaches the disputed limitations.
Ans. 2-3. In particular, the Examiner cites to paragraphs 157-159 of
Biderman for disclosing the disputed limitations. Ans. 3.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants contend:
All Biderman discloses in paragraph [O 157] is that the
alternative playlist may be selected if it is a better match. There
is nothing to suggest that the "timestamps" are taken into
account. There is therefore no teaching or suggestion that the
calculation or measurement of the bit rate is "in dependence on
3
Appeal2015-004956
Application 13/997,474
the critical points" (or "timestamps" following the Examiner's
previous arguments).
In the above paragraphs [0158]-[0159], Biderman
teaches that by switching between play lists at one of these
timestamps, the switch may occur without the user noticing.
These paragraphs also teach how such a timestamp may be
determined based on analyzing the audio or video parts of the
playlists.
However, again, there is no teaching or suggestion in
paragraphs [0158]-[0159] of Biderman that the step of
calculating or measuring the bit rate required to deliver the
remaining part of the stream is in dependence of these
timestamps. That is, the steps of determining the bit rate
required to deliver the playlist and of switching between the
playlists are completely separate and there is no use of these
timestamps in the bit rate determination step.
Reply Br. 3--4 (emphasis omitted).
We agree with Appellants as our interpretation of the disclosure of
Biderman coincides with that of Appellants. vVe also agree with Appellants
that the combination of Biderman and Lai fails to teach the disputed claim
limitations. Reply Br. 4. Therefore, on this record, we find the weight of
the evidence supports the position articulated by Appellants in the Briefs.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and
associated dependent claims 2, 3, 8, 9, and 11.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 8, 9, and 11 is reversed.
REVERSED
4