Ex Parte Roy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 11, 2016

10698671 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
10/698,671 10/30/2003
22879 7590 04/13/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sumit Roy
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.
82179209 3556
EXAMINER
CHANG, TIJLIAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2455
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/13/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUMIT ROY, MICHELE COVELL, JOHN ANKCORN, JOHN
APOSTOLOPOULOS, MICHAEL HARVILLE, BO SHEN,
WAI-TIAN TAN, and SUSIE WEE
Appeal2014-008075
Application 10/698,671
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMESON LEE, STEPHEN C. SIU, and JOHN D. HAMANN
A 1 • • ; ; • T"'\ ; ; T 1 Aamznzsrranve rarenz Juages.
SIU, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-008075
Application 10/698,671
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-18 and 26-40. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
The disclosed invention relates generally to servicing and delivery of
content over a network. Spec. 12-13. Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A method of servicing content for delivery to a
client device, said method comprising:
at the beginning of a session established between the
client device and a portal, receiving a request for an item of
content at said portal;
identifying a type of service to be performed on said item
of content, wherein said type of service to be performed is
derived from said request for said item of content, and wherein
said item of content is identified during said session involving
said client device;
sending a message associated with said request from said
portal to a service location manager;
using, at said service location manager, an estimate of
resources associated with performing said service to select a
provider from a plurality of providers capable of performing
said service;
sending a second message directly from said service
location manager to said client device, wherein said second
message comprises information for locating and contacting said
provider; and
providing information for transferring said session to said
provider, wherein said provider performs said service on said
item of content upon being transferred said session based on
said second message, wherein said service is a transcoding
service.
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in
support of the rejections:
2
Appeal2014-008075
Application 10/698,671
Lai
Tso
Yamaura
Richter
Agnoli
US 6,407,680 Bl
US 6,421,733 Bl
US 2003/0037124 Al
US 2003/0046396 Al
US 2003/0158913 Al
June 18, 2002
July 16, 2002
Feb.20,2003
Mar. 6, 2003
Aug. 21, 2003
Takeshi Yoshimura, et al., Mobile Streaming Media CDN Enabled by
Dynamic SMIL, WWW2002, 651---661May7-11, 2002 ("Yoshimura").
The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-12, 14, 16, 18, 26-28, 30,
32-34, and 36-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Yoshimura, Agnoli, and Yamaura; claims 4, 5, 15, 29, and 35 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoshimura, Agnoli, Yamaura,
and Tso; claims 7, 17, 31, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yoshimura, Agnoli, Yamaura, and Richter; and claims 9
and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoshimura,
Agnoli, Yamaura, and Lai.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-12, 14, 16, 18, 26-28, 30, 32-34, and 36-39-
y oshimura, Agnoli, and Yamaura
According to the Examiner, with respect to claim 1:
Yoshimura fails to teach identifying a type of service to be
performed on said item of content, wherein said type of service
to be performed is derived from said request for said item of
content, and wherein said item of content is identified during a
session involved with said client device; using an estimate of
resources associated with performing said service to select a
provider from a plurality of providers capable of performing said
service; and wherein said provider performs said service on said
item of content.
3
Appeal2014-008075
Application 10/698,671
Ans. 3. Further according to the Examiner, Agnoli discloses each of the
above-identified limitations said to be missing from Yoshimura. Id. at 4.
As the Examiner points out, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Yoshimura and
Agnoli, to add the above-noted features of Agnoli to Yoshimura, because
both Yoshimura and Agnoli disclose known processes of receiving a request
for data and providing the requested content via servers. Ans. 2-5. The
combination of one known method of providing requested content via
servers (i.e., Yoshimura) with another known method of providing requested
content via servers including identifying a type of service to be performed
on the content (i.e., Agnoli), etc., would have resulted in no more than the
predictable result of selecting servers capable of providing requested content
and identifying the type of service to be performed. Such a predictable
result would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int 'l
Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Appellants argue that it would not have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Yoshimura and
Agnoli because, according to Appellants, "Yoshimura and Agnoli ... teach
away from each other." App. Br. 8. In particular, Appellants argue that
Yoshimura supposedly requires "selecting a cache server ... based on the
current location of the mobile client" but that "Agnoli ... require[s]
selecting a transcoding server based on balancing the workload across all of
the potential transcoding servers." App. Br. 9. We are not persuaded by
Appellants' argument.
"[T]he prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does
not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such
4
Appeal2014-008075
Application 10/698,671
disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution
claimed ... . "In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In the
present case, Appellants argue that Yoshimura allegedly discloses one
alternative for selecting a server and Agnoli allegedly discloses a different
alternative for selecting a server. Appellants do not assert or demonstrate
sufficiently that either Yoshimura or Agnoli criticizes, discredits, or
otherwise discourages any specific method for selecting a server. Even if
Yoshimura and Agnoli disclose examples of selecting servers based on
location of a mobile client and workload balancing of servers, respectively,
as Appellants contend, we are not persuaded by Appellants' contention that
the mere alleged disclosure of one alternative for selecting a server
constitutes a "teaching away" from all other non-disclosed alternatives.
We also disagree with Appellants' contention that Yoshimura
supposedly discloses a "requirement" that the selection of servers must be
based on location of a mobile client. Yoshimura discloses that the "portal
server queries CLM about the locations of the [requested] segments
described in the SMIL file" and "selects the best surrogates for each segment
based on the client location, network condition, caching status, surrogate
load, and so on." Yoshimura 65 5. In other words, contrary to Appellants'
contention, Yoshimura does not disclose any specific requirement that
selection of a server must be "based on the current location of the mobile
client."
Regarding Appellants' contention that Agnoli supposedly "requires"
selection of a server based on workload balancing, we note that Agnoli
discloses receiving a request for "media content" and "processing of the
request to an appropriate alternative means for satisfying the request."
5
Appeal2014-008075
Application 10/698,671
Agnoli if 11. Agnoli also discloses "the load placed on the transcoding
servers is generally balanced" but that "it may be desirable to allow some
variants of the constraints that would otherwise be placed on a transcoding
task." Agnoli iii! 73-74. In other words, contrary to Appellants' contention,
Agnoli discloses explicitly that "variants of the constraints" may be allowed
in selecting servers and does not disclose any specific requirement that the
selection of a server must be "based on balancing the workload across all of
the potential transcoding servers."
For at least these additional reasons, we are not persuaded by
Appellants' argument.
Appellants argue that Yoshimura, alone or in combination with
Agnoli, fails to disclose or suggest sending a second message directly from
said service location manager to said client device, as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 10, 12. The Examiner relies on Yamaura for this teaching. Ans. 4--
5. Appellants do not assert or demonstrate sufficiently that Yamaura fails to
disclose this feature.
Appellants argue that Yoshimura "require[s] the content location
manager ( CLM) to send a message ... to the portal server" and, therefore,
"teaches away from [the CLM] 'sending a second message directly from
said service location manager to said client device .... "' App. Br. 11. As
discussed above, "the prior art's mere disclosure of more than one
alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives
because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage
the solution claimed .... " See Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201. Appellants do not
demonstrate sufficiently that Yoshimura discloses that the "content location
manager" must send a message to the "portal server" and that Yoshimura
6
Appeal2014-008075
Application 10/698,671
criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages sending a message to the
"client device." Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument.
Appellants argue that the combination of Yoshimura and Agnoli
"teach[ es] away from 'sending a second message directly from said service
location manager to said client device"' (as disclosed by Y amaura) because,
according to Appellants, Yoshimura and Agnoli disclose an example
embodiment in which "surrogates ... pre-fetch the segments before the
clients request the segments" and an example embodiment in which
"transcoding [occurs] prior to caching the transcoded media content,"
respectively. App. Br. 12-13. However, Appellants do not assert or
demonstrate sufficiently that any of the cited references criticize, discredit,
or otherwise discourage alternative methods of providing requested data.
Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants' implied contention that the
combination of Yoshimura and Agnoli supposedly "teaches away" from the
combination with Y amaura.
Appellants do not provide additional arguments in support of claims
11, 26, 33, and 37 or dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 27, 28,
30, 32, 34, 36, 38, and 39.
Claims 4, 5, 15, 29, and 35- Yoshimura, Agnoli, Yamaura, and Tso
Claims 7, 17, 31, and 40 - Yoshimura, Agnoli, Yamaura, and Richter
Claims 9 and 13 - Yoshimura, Agnoli, Y amaura, and Lai
Appellants argue that Tso, Richter, and Lai each fail to disclose at the
beginning of a session established between the client and a portal, receiving
a request for an item of content at a portal, or sending a second message
directly from said service location manager to said client device. App. Br.
7
Appeal2014-008075
Application 10/698,671
20-25. The Examiner, however, relies on Yoshimura, Agnoli, and Yamaura
for these features. Ans. 3, 13-15. Appellants do not explain sufficiently a
difference between the combination of Yoshimura, Agnoli, and Yamaura
and the disputed claim features.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-12, 14, 16,
18, 26-28, 30, 32-34, and 36-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yoshimura, Agnoli, and Yamaura; claims 4, 5, 15, 29, and
35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoshimura, Agnoli,
Yamaura, and Tso; claims 7, 17, 31, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yoshimura, Agnoli, Y amaura, and Richter; and
claims 9 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Yoshimura, Agnoli, Y amaura, and Lai.
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
8