Ex Parte Ramamurthy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

13168410 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

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.
13/168,410 06/24/2011 Shailesh Ramamurthy 25832-696 (L0696) 9972
124235 7590 06/27/2016
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
65 Livingston Avenue
Roseland, NJ 07068
EXAMINER
KEEHN, RICHARD G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SHAILESH RAMAMURTHY and SANTOSH GONDI
____________

Appeal 2015-000707
Application 13/168,410
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, KAMRAN JIVANI, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–25, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellants identify Motorola Mobility LLC as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-000707
Application 13/168,410

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to intelligent pre-buffering at access
points in an IPTV data stream to optimize trick-play features (e.g., rewind,
fast-forward, and seek). Abstract; Spec. ¶ 5. Independent claim 1, which is
illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving a multimedia content stream from a multimedia
content server, the multimedia content stream comprising a
series of segments, each segment including a key frame and
corresponding to a predicted seek position in the multimedia
content stream, the multimedia content server delivering at least
two versions of each segment in the multimedia content stream,
each version reconstructed from at least one encoded component
of the multimedia content stream, the versions varying a
characteristic of the multimedia content stream;
determining a likelihood of receiving a seek request from
a user to move from a current playout position in the multimedia
content stream to one of the predicted seek positions in the
multimedia content stream; and
determining a size of a buffer for each version of each
segment in the multimedia content stream based on the
likelihood of receiving the seek request.
App. Br. 12 (emphasis added).

PRIOR ART
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims:
Son et al. US 2002/0047899 A1 Apr. 25, 2002
Cheng et al. US 2008/0301315 A1 Dec. 4, 2008
Hunt US 2012/0144444 A1 June 7, 2012

Appeal 2015-000707
Application 13/168,410

3
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hunt and Son. Final Act. 3–17.
Claims 23–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hunt, Son, and Cheng. Final Act. 17.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the arguments
raised in the Briefs, on the record before us. For the reasons set forth below,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
Claim 1
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the references teach
the claim limitation “determining a size of a buffer for each version of each
segment in the multimedia content stream based on the likelihood of
receiving the seek request.” App. Br. 9 (emphasis added). The Examiner
finds this limitation in Son, which is directed to pre-processing and post-
processing of data in a video on demand (VOD) system. Final Act. 4–5.
Specifically, the Examiner cites Son’s disclosure of sizing the “content in
the payload of each RTP [Realtime Transfer Protocol] packet” to “minimize
the latencies in streaming content from the stream caching server.” Ans. 4–
5. The Examiner reasons this “must necessarily” include determining a size
of a buffer as claimed. Id. We disagree.
As recited in the claim, a size of a buffer must be determined “based
on the likelihood of receiving the seek request.” App. Br. 12 (emphasis
added). The “seek request” is a “request from a user to move from a current
Appeal 2015-000707
Application 13/168,410

4
playout position in the multimedia content stream to one of the predicted
seek positions in the multimedia content stream.” Id. The Examiner finds
the claimed “seek request” in Son paragraph 34, which discloses metadata
comprising “indexing at IP packet boundaries” that “enables the stream
caching server 102 in responding to an interactive VCR like commands, e.g.,
fast forward (FF), rewind (REW), pause, stop, bookmark, and return to
place.” Ans. 3. A bookmark position and return to place index are, the
Examiner explains, predicted seek positions which therefore teach the
claimed user “seek request.” Id. The record, in our view, supports the
Examiner’s findings to this point. The problem, however, is that the record
before us does not indicate that the likelihood of receiving the (go to)
bookmark position, return to place, and other “seek requests” the Examiner
cites in Son, influences the size of the buffer, as required by the claim.
Son discloses the “read block for the packet processor 144 is sized to
the MPEG packets in the payload of each RTP packet.” Son ¶ 51. The
number of MPEG packets in each RTP packet is constrained by an available
buffer space in a Fibre Channel controller that is used to read the content.”
Id. (emphasis added); Ans. 4. Nothing in the cited portions of Son describes
the size of this buffer being determined “based on” any particular factors,
other than what is “available,” let alone “based on the likelihood of receiving
the seek request.” The Examiner states, “[i]t is clear that the content in the
payload (buffer size) is sized to minimize latencies” in playback, such as
“when executing the bookmark,” thus the system in Son “must necessarily
factor in the reception of said commands when sizing to minimize the
latencies.” Ans. 5 (emphasis omitted). This statement, however,
encompasses several unexplained assumptions, including that the “content in
Appeal 2015-000707
Application 13/168,410

5
the payload” in Son must necessarily be synonymous with the “buffer size,”
and that “sizing to minimize latencies” refers to sizing the buffer. Lacking
any further explanation, we find insufficient support in the record for the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be
sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.”).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hunt and Son.

Remaining Claims
Independent claims 13 and 22 include the same disputed limitation as
claim 1 discussed above. For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hunt
and Son. Similarly, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2–
12 and 14–21, which include the limitations of their base claims 1 and 13,
respectively.
Dependent claims 23–25 include the limitations of base claim 22, and
the Examiner’s addition of Cheng does not address the deficiencies in the
rejection of the base claim. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims
23–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hunt, Son, and Cheng.

Appeal 2015-000707
Application 13/168,410

6
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–25 are reversed.

REVERSED