Ex Parte Oztaskent

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 11, 2018

12242993 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/242,993 10/01/2008
23505 7590 09/13/2018
CONLEY ROSE, P.C.
575 N. Dairy Ashford Road
Suite 1102
HOUSTON, TX 77079
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ant Oztaskent
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.
1821-04101 9510
EXAMINER
HOSSAIN, FARZANA E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/13/2018 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):
pathou@conleyrose.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANT OZTASKENT 1
Appeal 2018-000851
Application 12/242,993
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
JOYCE CRAIG Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4, 6 through 16, and 18 through 33.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to a method for use in streaming digital
media where, during playback of the digital media content, parameters
associated with a defined type of frame within the digital media stream are
determined and, based upon the determined parameters, the positions within
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Cabot
Communications. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-000851
Application 12/242,993
the digital media stream of other of the defined type of frame within the
digital media stream are estimated. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A method of streaming of digital media content, the
method comprising:
at a receiver, receiving from a source a stream of digital
media content comprising a stream of data frames;
during playback in normal mode of the digital media
content, continuously measuring for a time interval a size and
separation of consecutive frames of a defined type and, using a
statistical analysis of the measured sizes and separations,
determining parameters by the receiver associated with a
defined type of frame within the digital media stream; and,
based upon the determined parameters, estimating a
position within the digital media stream of instances of the
defined type of frame;
at the receiver that receives the digital media content, in
dependence on the determined parameters, requesting from the
source only blocks of the stream of data frames expected to
include subsequent or previous frames of the defined type of
frame.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 14 through 16, 18 through 23, and
29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 second paragraph as being indefinite. Answer 2. 2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 6 through 9, 11, 14 through
16, 19 through 22, and 24 through 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed April 28, 2017
(hereinafter "App. Br.") and the Examiner's Answer, mailed on August 18,
2017 (hereinafter "Answer").
2
Appeal 2018-000851
Application 12/242,993
unpatentable over Emura (US 6,848,117 Bl, issued Jan. 25, 2005;
hereinafter "Emura"), White (2008/0263608 Al, published Oct. 23, 2008;
hereinafter "White") and Manders (WO 2006/114769 A2, published Nov. 2,
2006; hereinafter "Manders"). 3 Answer 2-15.
The Examiner has rejected claims 10, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Emura, White, Manders, and Barbanson (US
7,627,886 B2, Dec. 1, 2009). Answer 15-17.
The Examiner has rejected claim 18 under 3 5 U.S. C. § 10 3 (a) as
unpatentable over Emura, White, Manders, and Ellis (US 2003/0149988 Al,
published Aug. 7, 2003). Answer 17.
The Examiner has rejected claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Emura, White, Manders, Barbanson, and Corson (US
2002/0147979 Al, published Oct. 10, 2002). Answer 18.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner's response to Appellant's arguments. We agree with Appellant's
contention that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 14, and
24 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a). However, Appellant's arguments have not
persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
Initially, we note Appellant has not addressed the Examiner's
indefiniteness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Thus,
3 Paragraph citations are to the US published application US 2008/027368,
which is based upon the same PCT application.
3
Appeal 2018-000851
Application 12/242,993
Appellant has not identified an error in this rejection, and we sustain it pro-
forma.
With regard to the obviousness rejection, Appellant argues the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Emura, White, and Manders
teaches "during playback of the digital media content, in a normal mode,
continuously measuring for a time interval, a size and separation of
consecutive frames of a defined type," as recited in each of the independent
claims. App. Br. 11-14. Specifically, Appellant argues that Emura uses an
access table to determine this information and the data is not calculated
during normal play. App. Br. 11-12. Appellant argues that White teaches
detecting frame rate to determine chapter position in a video stream, but that
White does not disclose measuring frame sizes and separations as claimed.
App. Br. 12. Finally, Appellant argues that Manders does not disclose
measuring size and separation of I-frames during normal playback. App Br.
13. Specifically Appellant argues that paragraph 139, which the Examiner
cites to teach measuring frame sizes and separations:
[E]xplains that "the sizes of I-frames 201 are known or are
derivable from the measurement." However, it is neither clear
how this measurement is taken, nor even what measurement is
being referred to; Appellant can only surmise it is the
measurement of the bit rate mentioned in the preceding
paragraph, which is not a measurement of sizes and separations
of consecutive frames of a defined type, as required. Paragraph
[O 148] relates to how decoding and presentation time stamps
within I-frames need to be altered for trick-play, while
paragraphs [0152] and [0153] describe calculating a trick-play
speed factor using the relative GOP ("group of pictures") sizes
in normal and trick-play.
App. Br. 14.
4
Appeal 2018-000851
Application 12/242,993
The Examiner in response to Appellant states that Emura is used to
teach the statistical analysis of the stream to determine parameters and that
Emura teaches that the terminal side makes determinations of key frame
average data length and playback interval. Answer 19 ( citing Emura cols.
11, 12, 23, and 24). Further, the Examiner finds that White teaches
determining parameters during normal playback of a video stream. Answer
19-20 (citing paragraphs 21, 23, and 27). In combination the Examiner
finds that Emura and White teach measuring data continuously including
data of frame size and separation, but do not teach this measurement is for a
time interval. Answer 20. Finally, the Examiner cites Manders as teaching
that I-frames are derivable from measurements taken of the streams in
normal play mode. Answer 20-21 (citing paragraphs 138, 139, 152, and
153). Based upon these findings the Examiner concludes that the claim is
obvious.
We disagree with the Examiner. As argued by Appellant, the cited
portions of Emura teach using an access table to determine frame size and
separation and that the data is not calculated during normal play. See Col.
24, 11. 11-13. Further, while White does teach statistical analysis, the
analysis does not include frame size and separation. Finally, while Manders
teaches that the sizes of I-frames are derivable from a measurement (see e.g.,
para 139) we do not see that Manders teaches that this measurement is made
during normal playback. We additionally note, Manders states, in paragraph
131, that I-frames can be located while the recording is being made, off-line
after recording or semi on line, with a small delay with respect to the
moment of recording, thus suggesting the locations (separation) of the I-
frames are not determined during normal play of the video stream.
5
Appeal 2018-000851
Application 12/242,993
Accordingly, on the record before us, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claims 1, 14, and 24 or of dependent claims 2, 4, 6
through 9, 11, 15, 16, 19 through 22, and 25 through 33 similarly rejected.
The Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 10, 12, 13, 18, and 23
similarly rely upon Emura, White, and Manders to teach the limitations of
the independent claims. The Examiner has not shown that the additional
references remedy the deficiency addressed above in the rejection of claim
1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claims 10, 12, 13, 18, and 23 for the same reasons as claim 1.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 6 through 16,
and 18 through 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 14 through 16, 18
through 23, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 second paragraph.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6