Ex Parte Ruiz Alonso et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2016

13640154 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/640, 154 0113112013
48116 7590
FAY SHARPE/LUCENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843
09/22/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jaime Ruiz Alonso
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.
LUTZ 201548US01 2034
EXAMINER
ALAM, MUSHFIKH I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2016 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):
docketing@faysharpe.com
ipsnarocp@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAIME RUIZ ALONSO, PABLO PEREZ GARCIA, and
ALVARO VILLEGAS NUNEZ
Appeal2015-003687
Application 13/640, 154
Technology Center 2400
Before NATHAN A. ENGELS, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 21-29. Claims 1-16 have been canceled, and the
Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 17-20, Ans. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Alcatel Lucent as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-003687
Application 13/640,154
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to error correction in broadcast of digital
content. Spec. i-fi-f l-5. Claims 21 and 29, reproduced below, are illustrative
of the invention:
21. A customer device comprising:
a receiver that is operative to receive a first broadcast
transport stream from a head end via a first telecommunications
network that is other than a telecommunications network based
on an Internet IP protocol; and
at least one processor configured as:
a customer retransmission unit adapted to generate digital
fingerprints based on the content of a continuity counter,
packetized identifier and first bits of a payload of packets from
the first broadcast transport stream.
29. A non-transitory computer readable medium carrying
instruction for at least one processor, which if executed by the at
least one processor would provide for the at least one processor
to:
generate digital fingerprints based on the content of a
continuity counter, packetized identifier and first bits of a
payload of packets from a first broadcast transport stream
received from a head end via a first telecommunications network
that is other than a telecommunications network based on an
Internet IP protocol;
receive via an Internet protocol telecommunications
network, a packet loss petition message including digital
fingerprints of several packets correctly received before and after
the lost packet;
search for a copy of the lost packet on the basis of the
digital fingerprints included in the packet loss petition message,
and
2
Appeal2015-003687
Application 13/640,154
transmitting a second digital data stream including a copy
of the lost packet to the customer retransmission unit (153) via
the Internet protocol telecommunications network.
App. Br. 20, 22 (emphasis added).
THE REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 21-29 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hamazaki (US 2007/0223535 Al; pub. Sept. 27, 2007),
Rodriguez et al. (US 2009/0328237 Al; pub. Dec. 31, 2009) ("Rodriguez")
and McLaren et al. (US 2011/0134930 Al; pub. June 9, 2001) ("McLaren").
Final Act. 2-7. 2
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.
Claims 21-28
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches
"digital fingerprints based on the content of a continuity counter, packetized
identifier and first bits of a payload of packets," as recited in independent
claims 21 and 25 and their respective dependent claims 22-24 and 26-28.
App. Br. 10-12, 15; Reply Br. 5-6. Moreover, Appellants argue the
Examiner's withdrawal of the rejection of claim 17, which also includes the
foregoing disputed limitation, is inconsistent with the Examiner's
2 The rejection and appeal originally encompassed claims 17-29, but as
stated above, see supra at 1, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims
17-20 during the course of this appeal, Ans. 2. Claims 17-20, therefore, are
not before us.
3
Appeal2015-003687
Application 13/640,154
maintaining the same rejection (based upon the same references) of claims
21-28, and that the Examiner fails to explain the basis for rejecting claims
21-28. Reply Br. 2. Appellants' arguments persuade us of error.
In the Final Action, the Examiner's rejection of claims 21-28 is based
explicitly upon the Examiner's stated reasons for rejecting claim 17. Final
Act. 6-7. In rejecting independent claim 21, the Examiner simply states
"[c]laim 21 is analyzed and interpreted as a 'customer device' as [sic] the
apparatus to perform the steps of claim 17 ." Final Act. 6; see also id. 7
(rejection of claim 25 also citing claim 17). The Examiner provides no
further analysis of claim 21 in the Final Action. The rejection of claim 17,
however, is withdrawn in the Answer (at 2). The Examiner nevertheless
maintains the rejection of claim 21, asserting that the "limitations within the
claim[]" were not "ignored" and that it was "given the broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the specification." Ans. 3. Although the Examiner
states, "[f]urther discussion is listed below," id., none of that discussion
pertains to limitations recited in claim 21 and there is no further analysis of
that claim. Claim 25 is not mentioned in the Answer.
We cannot discern, on the record before us, the Examiner's basis for
rejecting independent claims 21 and 25 (and their dependent claims), and
particularly the Examiner's basis for finding the limitation "digital
fingerprints based on the content of a continuity counter, packetized
identifier and first bits of a payload of packets," which appears in each of
claims 17, 21, and 25. In initially rejecting claim 17, the Examiner appears
to rely on Rodriguez's paragraphs 22-28 for this limitation, Final Act. 4, but
the Examiner has withdrawn that rejection. Moreover, as Appellants argue,
4
Appeal2015-003687
Application 13/640,154
Reply Br. 5, those paragraphs of Rodriguez disclose fingerprinting of video
frames based on the (video) content of pictures or frames, whereas
Appellants' claims require fingerprints based on a "continuity counter,"
"packetized identifier," and "first bits of a payload of packets." We discern
no finding in the record as to how these elements are disclosed, taught, or
suggested by the cited passage in Rodriguez.
Accordingly, on the record before us, we cannot sustain the rejection
of claims 21-28 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hamazaki, Rodriguez, and McLaren.
Claim 29
Appellants argue the prior art cited by the Examiner fails to teach "a
packet loss petition message including digital fingerprints of several packets
correctly received before and after the lost packet," and "search for a copy of
the lost packet on the basis of the digital fingerprints." App. Br. 6; 22. 3
The Examiner finds both of the foregoing limitations of claim 29 in
McLaren's paragraph 23. Ans. 4. With respect to the "packet loss petition
message," the Examiner finds "McLaren clearly discloses that the ACK
message returned from the 2nd computer to the first computer is an
acknowledgement that a data packet was lost, which results in a subsequent
retransmission of the lost packet. This is interpreted [as] 'petitioning' for a
lost packet as recited in the claims." Ans. 4.
3 Appellants also contend that, as with claims 21 and 25, it is inconsistent for
the Examiner to maintain the rejection of claim 29 when the rejection of
claim 1 7 (which Appellants contend is commensurate in scope) has been
withdrawn. Reply Br. 2, 7-9.
5
Appeal2015-003687
Application 13/640,154
As Appellants argue, however, Reply Br. 8, the "ACK" message in
McLaren acknowledges receipt of packets and only results in the
retransmission of a lost packet when the ACK message is not received by the
first computer. McLaren i-f 23. Moreover, the Examiner does not explain
how the ACK message taught in McLaren "includes digital fingerprints of
several packets correctly received before and after the lost packet," as
recited in the claim. Appellants, therefore, persuade us of error, and we need
not reach Appellants' remaining arguments.
Accordingly, on the record before us, we cannot sustain the rejection
of claim 29 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hamazaki, Rodriguez, and McLaren.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 21-29 is reversed.
REVERSED
6