Ex Parte Ratakonda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2013

11480351 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2013)

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.
11/480,351 07/05/2006 Krishna C. Ratakonda YOR920060158US1 2439
48063 7590 12/20/2013
RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
48 South Service Road
Suite 100
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
COLLINS, JOSHUA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2013 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 KRISHNA C. RATAKONDA,
DURGA SAI PHANEENDHAR VEMURU, and
PETER H. WESTERINK
_____________

Appeal 2011- 006948
Application 11/480,351
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, 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 through 8 and 11 through 20.

We reverse.
Appeal 2011- 006948
Application 11/480,351
2

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method of providing a streaming
presentation which includes auxiliary data objects where some of the
auxiliary data objects may be reused (repeated) in the presentation. Page 4
of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and
reproduced below:
1. A method of providing a streamed presentation to multiple clients
over a network comprising:
generating audio, video, and auxiliary data objects;

marking the auxiliary data objects with unique ID tags;

streaming the audio, video, and tagged auxiliary data objects
over said network to said clients while marking a first transmission
time of said auxiliary data object;

at said clients, rendering the data objects and storing in a local
memory cache of said clients said auxiliary data objects and
associated unique ID tags;
for a repeated auxiliary data object referenced during the
presentation, sending an associated unique ID tag of said data object
to a client instead of contents of the associated auxiliary data object
when a join-time of the client precedes said first transmission time
and automatically sending the contents of said auxiliary data object to
the client when the join time of said client follows said first
transmission time; and

at said client, retrieving from said local memory cache and
rendering repeated auxiliary data object according to said unique ID
tags.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 4, 7, 8, 11, and 13
through 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Craig (US
6,654,785 B1, Nov. 25, 2003), Meer (“RTP Payload Format for Transport of
Appeal 2011- 006948
Application 11/480,351
3

MPEG-4 Elementary Streams,” RFC 3640, Nov. 2003) and Bruno (US
5,710,591, Jan. 20, 1998). Answer 5-22.
1

The Examiner has rejected claims 5, 6, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Craig, Meer, Bruno, and Nagaraj (“Web
Caching and Its Applications,” Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004). Answer
22-24.
The Examiner has rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Craig, Meer, Bruno, and Waluyo (“Utilising Push and Pull
Mechanisms in Wireless E- Health Environment,” Proceedings of 2004
IEEE International Conference on e-Technology, e-Commerce and e-Service
2004). Answer 24-25.

ISSUE
Appellants present several arguments on pages 5 through 9 of the
Appeal Brief, directed to the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1
11, 12, 13, and 16. The issue raised by these arguments which is dispositive
of the appeal is: did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Craig,
Meer, and Bruno teaches marking a transmission time of a data object and
comparing this transmission time with a join-time of a participant?

1
Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated October 21,
2010, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed on December 17, 2010.
Appeal 2011- 006948
Application 11/480,351
4

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’
arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred
in finding the combination of Craig, Meer, and Bruno teaches the limitations
of independent claims 1, 11, 13, and 16. Independent claim 1 recites
marking the transmission time of a data object and performing actions based
upon whether the join-time of a client precedes or follows the transmission
time, i.e. a comparison of join-time and transmission time is made.
Independent claims 11, 13, and 16 recite a comparison of join-time and
transmission time. In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner
finds that Bruno teaches marking transmission time and that the comparison
is implicit in Craig’s teaching of synchronization of slides for a tardy student
joining the presentation late. Answer 30-31. We disagree with the
Examiner’s finding that a comparison of times as claimed is implicit in the
teachings of Craig. The Examiner has not cited sufficient evidence to
support such a finding, and it appears that the synchronization in Craig is
nothing more than identifying the current slide number. See, e.g., Craig col.
10, ll. 32-38. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 11, 13, and 16 and dependent claims 2 through 4, 7, 8,
14, 15, 17, and 18 similarly rejected.

Independent claim 12, similarly recites a comparison of join-time of a
client and transmission time. The Examiner’s rejection relies upon similar
findings based upon Craig, Meer, and Bruno to show this feature is obvious.
The Examiner has not shown that the teachings of Waluyo make up for the
Appeal 2011- 006948
Application 11/480,351
5

deficiencies noted above with respect to the rejection based upon Craig,
Meer, and Bruno. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 12 for the same reasons as discussed with respect to claim 1.

Similarly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 5, 6, 19, and 20. The Examiner’s rejection relies upon the findings
based upon Craig, Meer, and Bruno to show the features of independent
claims 1 and 16. The Examiner has not shown that the teachings of Nagaraj
make up for the deficiencies noted above with respect to the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 16. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, 19, and 20 for the same reasons as
discussed with respect to claims 1 and 16.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 8, 11 through
20 is reversed.

REVERSED

ELD