Ex Parte Oyman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2018

13553880 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/553,880 07/20/2012
57035 7590 06/04/2018
KACVINSKY DAISAK BLUNI PLLC
Attention: Tricia Riddle
430 Davis Drive
Suite 150
Morrisville, NC 27560
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
OzgurOyman
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.
P44189/1020P44189 1889
EXAMINER
ANDREWS, HOYET H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2411
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/04/2018 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):
inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
docketing@kdbfirm.com
intel@kdbfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OZGUR OYMAN
Appeal 2017-011266
Application 13/553,880
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 51---60, 62---69, and 71-75. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal 2017-011266
Application 13/553,880
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to transmitting "content over one or
more wireless connections using one or more wireless mobile broadband
technologies" (Spec. i115).
Independent claim 51, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
51. User Equipment (UE), comprising:
a radio frequency (RF) receiver to receive a multicast
transmission comprising a user service description (USD) of a
multimedia broadcast/multicast service (MEMS) protocol, the
multicast transmission to comprise a description section and a
correspondence section; and
a processor circuit to identify a multicast content stream
bundle comprising multicast content streams based on the
correspondence section, each of the plurality of multicast
content streams corresponding to one of a plurality of dynamic
adaptive streaming over hypertext transfer protocol (DASH)-
formatted content versions, and select one of the multicast
content streams to process based on characteristics identified in
the description section;
the RF receiver to establish a plurality of file delivery
over unidirectional transport (FLUTE) sessions, each of the
plurality of FLUTE sessions corresponding to one of the
multicast content streams, and the correspondence section to
comprise information identifying, for each multicast content
stream and corresponding MEMS service, a corresponding
FL UTE session.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 51-60, 62-69, and 71-75 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Casaccia et al. (US 8,437,347
B2; issued May 7, 2012) (hereinafter "Casaccia"), 3GPP TS 26.346 V9.4.0;
3D Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services
2
Appeal 2017-011266
Application 13/553,880
and System Aspects; Multimedia Broadcast/Multicast Service (MEMS);
Protocols and Codecs [Release 9] (hereinafter "TS 26.346"), Iraj Sodagar,
The MPEG-DASH Standard for Multimedia Streaming Over the Internet,
Multimedia IEEE, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 62-67, April 2011 (hereinafter
"Sodagar"), and Teleca White Papers, Solution area e-MBMS in LTE,
Increasing Broadcast and Multicast Service Capacity and Quality using
LTE and MEMS (hereinafter "Teleca").
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding the cited references
do not teach or suggest Appellant's claimed invention (Br. 11). Particularly,
Appellant contends "Casaccia, TS 26.346, and Muthusamy are all entirely
silent with respect to DASH" and there is no suggestion in Sodagar of "how
DASH-formatted content might be delivered to user equipment (UEs)" (id.).
Thus, because the "cited references must teach or suggest more than simply
the notion that the 'MPEG-DASH"' taught by Sodagar "might be used in the
wireless environment," the references must "teach or suggest a connection
between DASH, MBMS, and FLUTE" ( Br. 12). Appellant also contends
3GPP standards, at the time of Appellant's invention, "did not define or
contemplate any connection between DASH, MMBS and/or FLUTE" (Br.
13). We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings (Ans. 3-31; Final
Act. 3---6). Particularly, we agree TS 26.346 discloses in Section 5.6, titled
3GP-DASH and MBMS (p. 33), "[t]he 3GPP Dynamic Adaptive Streaming
over HTTP (3GP-DASH) as defined in [98] specifies formats and methods
3
Appeal 2017-011266
Application 13/553,880
that enable the delivery of streaming service(s) from standard HTTP servers
to DASH client(s)" (see Ans. 27-28).
As to Appellant's contention that 3GPP standards did not define or
contemplate any connection between DASH, MBMS, and FLUTE, we also
agree with the Examiner (Ans. 30-31 ). Particularly, the MPEG-DASH over
HTTP standard was released June of 2011; Appellant filed their provisional
application January, 27, 2012 (Ans. 30). See, e.g., TS 26.346 page 33-34.
Appellant does not rebut any of the Examiner's extensive and
reasonable arguments in the Final Action and Answer other than, for the
most part, stating, in the Appeal Brief, the claim limitations and incorrectly
asserting the references "are entirely silent" with respect to DASH and they
did not "contemplate and connection between" DASH, MBMS, and FLUTE.
Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner's reading of the claims
on the cited combination of references is overly broad in light of the
arguments provided. We find the weight of the evidence supports the
Examiner's ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness, and therefore sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 51---60, 62---69, and 71-75, argued
together.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 51---60, 62---69, and 71-75 is
affirmed.
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
4