Ex Parte Schmidt

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 23, 2017

13703196 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2017)

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.
13/703,196 12/10/2012 Christian Schmidt 089229.00615 6043
32294 7590 06/27/2017
Squire PB (NVA/DC Office)
8000 TOWERS CRESCENT DRIVE
14TH FLOOR
VIENNA, VA 22182-6212
EXAMINER
SCOTT, MARK A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2458
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2017 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):
IPGENER ALTY C @ SQUIREpb.COM
SONIA. WHITNEY @ SQUIREpb.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTIAN SCHMIDT
Appeal 2017-001744
Application 13/703,196
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—
14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2017-001744
Application 13/703,196
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “providing an improved peer-to-peer
system, in particular, to providing live streams.” Spec. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising the steps of:
receiving a report from one or more first peers wherein
said report includes one or more quality of service measurements
relating to an entire first live stream of a broadcast;
receiving a request from a second peer for said broadcast;
determining a source of an entire second live stream for
said broadcast based on said received quality of service
measurements; and
informing said second peer of said determined source.
REFERENCES AND REJECTION
Claims 1—14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Saffre (US 2010/0115085 Al, published May 6, 2010) in
view of Zhang (US 2010/0246432 Al, published Sept. 30, 2010).1 Final
Act. 3^1.
ANALYSIS
Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 7—12; Reply Br. 2 4) do not
persuade us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 (Final Act. 3—4)
for the reasons stated by the Examiner (Ans. 2—5). We adopt the Examiner’s
1 The rejection incorrectly refers to Banerjee (US 2005/0204042 Al,
published Sept. 15, 2005). See Final Act. 3; Ans. 2. Appellant recognizes
the typographical error. App. Br. 7. Accordingly, we consider the
typographical error harmless and review the rejection as stated above.
2
Appeal 2017-001744
Application 13/703,196
findings and conclusion that claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of
Saffre and Zhang. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellant’s arguments that the prior art does not teach or suggest “an
entire first live stream of a broadcast” and “determining a source of an entire
second live stream for said broadcast” because the references do not teach an
“entire” “live” stream of a broadcast (App. Br. 9—11; Reply Br. 3 4) are
unpersuasive in view of the undisputed findings that any stream that has
started and stopped is an “entire” stream (Ans. 3) and Zhang discloses a
stream received from “a live broadcast source” (see App. Br. 10; Zhang
1116). A fragment of a broadcast is nevertheless an entire broadcast stream,
even though it may be a fragment of something larger, contrary to
Appellant’s arguments. App. Br. 10-11.
Appellant’s arguments of error based on the “determining” step (id.
11—12) are unpersuasive for the reasons stated by the Examiner (Ans. 4),
which Appellant does not persuasively challenge. See generally Reply Br.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1.
We also sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 2—14, which
Appellant argues on the same basis. See App. Br. 12—17.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—14.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
3