Ex Parte Nix

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 15, 2016

13361399 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/361,399 01/30/2012 William Dale Todd Nix
33438 7590 08/17/2016
TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP
P.O. BOX 203518
AUSTIN, TX 78720
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.
DC-19513 9529
EXAMINER
MCADAMS, BRAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/17/2016 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):
tmunoz@tcchlaw.com
kchambers@tcchlaw.com
heather@tcchlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM DALE TODD NIX
Appeal2015-000519
Application 13/361,399
Technology Center 2400
Before KAL YANK. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-000519
Application 13/361,399
STATEMENT OF CASE1
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
INVENTION
The invention is directed information handling systems. Spec. i-f 1.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A method for presenting multimedia information at a
client information handling system, the method comprising:
sending a request from the client information handling
system through a network to a server information handling
system, the request for multimedia content, the multimedia
content stored in a multimedia container having the multimedia
content in plural formats;
determining at the server information handling system a
format for presentation of the multimedia content at the client
handling system;
in response to the determining, copying the multimedia
content from the multimedia container to a delivery container,
the delivery container having the multimedia content in only the
determined format; and
sending the multimedia content in only the determined
format from the server information handling system to the client
information handling system through the network.
1 Our decision makes reference to Appellant's Reply Brief ("Reply Br.,"
filed September 30, 2014), and Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed July 28,
2014), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed August 27, 2014) and
Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed March 12, 2014).
2
Appeal2015-000519
Application 13/361,399
Lai et al.
Kiefer et al.
REFERENCES
US 6,593,860 B2
US 2013/0061045 Al
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
July 15, 2003
Mar. 7, 20132
Claims 1-5, 8-14, 16-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Kiefer. Final Act. 3-9; Ans. 2-8.
Claims 6, 7, 15, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Kiefer and Lai. Final Act. 10-11; Ans. 8-
9.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Kiefer discloses "copying the
multimedia content from the multimedia container to a delivery container,"
as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent
claims 10 and 18?
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites "copying the multimedia content from the
multimedia container to a delivery container." Independent claim 10
similarly recites "transmuxing the content in only the determined format
from the multimedia container to a delivery container for communication
through the network," and independent claim 18 similarly recites
2 Application filed December 29, 2011. Provisional Application filed
September 1, 2011.
3
Appeal2015-000519
Application 13/361,399
"transnmxing the multimedia content in only the determined format from a
multimedia container to a delivery container for communication in response
to the request." Claims 2-9, 11-17, and 19 and 20 are dependent upon
claims 1, 10, and 18, respectively.
The Examiner finds Kiefer' s copying and streaming of multimedia
content from a Matroska (multimedia content) file to a playback device
teaches the disputed limitation. Final Act. 4--5 (citing Kiefer i-fi-f 118, 128);
Ans. 10. Specifically, the Examiner finds that because "[c]laim 1 does not
define what a delivery container is, just what information it holds," "[ o ]ne of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that anything ranging from the
buffer that the network uses to transmit the streamed information, to the
carrier wave that holds said content," is encompassed within the broadest
reasonable interpretation of "delivery container." Ans. 10.
Appellant argues Kiefer discloses streaming pre-existing clusters of
multimedia content directly from the Matroska file container (multimedia
container) to a client device. See App. Br. 3--4; Reply Br. 1-2. Therefore,
Appellant contends that rather than "copying the multimedia content from
the multimedia container to a delivery container," Kiefer merely teaches
streaming the multimedia content. Id. We agree.
We note that the rejection is an anticipation rejection.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) requires that "each and every element
as set forth in the claim is found 5 either expressly or inherently described, in
a single prior art reference." In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir.
1999). Although we agree with the Examiner that the term "delivery
container" is broad enough to encompass a container such as a "buffer that
the network uses to transmit the streamed information," we agree with
4
Appeal2015-000519
Application 13/361,399
Appellant that the Examiner has not shown that Kiefer's streaming
necessarily "copies" the information to such a buffer or some other "delivery
container." Rather, Kiefer only discloses that content is streamed from the
Matroska container or "multimedia container," to the playback device
(Kiefer i-fi-f 118, 128), whereas the claim requires "copying the multimedia
content from the multimedia container to a delivery container."
Accordingly, the Examiner has not persuasively demonstrated that Kiefer
discloses a "delivery container" that is distinct from the multimedia
container. Therefore, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-20. This issue is dispositive with respect to the rejection of all of the
claims, and, therefore, we need not reach the remaining arguments presented
by Appellant (App. Br. 2-5; Reply Br. 1-2).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding Kiefer discloses "copying the
multimedia content from the multimedia container to a delivery container,"
as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent
claims 10 and 18.
SUMMARY
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5, 8-14, 16-18, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Kiefer is reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 6, 7, 15, and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Kiefer and Lai is
reversed.
5
Appeal2015-000519
Application 13/361,399
REVERSED
6