Ex Parte Setlur et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 9, 2016

13541598 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 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.
49851-US-CON 5665
EXAMINER
WAQAS, SAAD A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/541,598 07/03/2012
132251 7590
(BLG/Core Wireless/27921)
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
World Exchange Plaza
100 Queen Street, Suite 1300
Ottawa, ON KIP 1J9
CANADA
12/13/2016
Vidya Setlur
12/13/2016 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):
ipinfo@blg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VIDYA SETLUR, DAIDI ZHONG, MISKA HANNUKSELA,
RAMAKRISHNA VEDANTHAM, SURESH CHITTURI, TOLGA CAPIN,
and MICHAEL INGRASSIA
Appeal 2016-002817
Application 13/541,5981
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which constitute all of the
claims pending in this appeal. Claims App’x. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Core Wireless Licensing
S.a.r.l. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-002817
Application 13/541,598
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants invented a method and system for allowing a server (100)
to transmit to a client (110) a multimedia presentation in a packet stream
including scene packets containing information derived from a scene
description and/or update, as well as a packet containing a list of graphic
elements including an image currently active in the multimedia presentation.
Spec. 1128-31, Fig. 1.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A method for delivering content to a client device,
comprising:
transmitting a multimedia presentation in a packet stream to the
client device, the multimedia presentation specified using a markup
language,
wherein the multimedia presentation includes at least one scene
description and at least one scene update, and wherein the packet
stream includes scene packets containing information derived from
the at least one scene description or the at least one scene update,
wherein at least one packet contains a list of graphics elements
that are currently active in the multimedia presentation, the graphics
elements in the list at least including one or more images, wherein one
scene followed by one or more scene updates constitutes a group and
the list of graphics elements that are currently active is transmitted
once for a particular group.
Prior Art Relied Upon
Moriya et al. US 2005/0149557 A1 July 7, 2005
Bourges-Sevenier et al. US 2007/0192818 Al Aug. 16, 2007
Peltotalo, Jani; "File Delivery over DVB-H, FLUTE", March 2005.
2
Appeal 2016-002817
Application 13/541,598
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—3, 6, 9-12, 15, and 18—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Moriya.
Claims 7 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Moriya and Peltotalo.
Claims 4, 5, 8, 13, 14, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Moriya and Bourges.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 3—7 and the Reply Brief, pages 2—5.2
Anticipation Rejection
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellants argue that Moriya does
not describe at least one packet containing a list of graphic elements
including one or more images. App. Br. 6—7. In particular, Appellants
argue that Moriya relates to a system for dividing multimedia content into a
plurality of scenes including metadata describing the hierarchical structure
as well as the characteristic amount of each scene. App. Br. 6 (citing Moriya
134). According to Appellants, none of the disclosed characteristic amounts
including visual characteristics such as colors, motions, or shapes of objects
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 22, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed January
14, 2016), and the Answer (mailed November 18, 2015) for their respective
details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments
Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
3
Appeal 2016-002817
Application 13/541,598
describes an image. Id. at 7 (citing Moriya 58—60). That is, the
characteristic amounts relate to the quantity of motions, colors, or shapes of
an object that are present in the scene, as opposed to indicating the presence
of an image. Id. This argument is not persuasive.
As correctly noted by Appellants, Moriya discloses a system for
dividing multimedia content into a plurality of scenes including metadata
describing the hierarchical structure as well as the characteristic amounts
(e.g., motions, colors, shapes of objects) contained in each scene. Id. at 6
(citing Moriya 34, 51). However, Moriya further discloses that the
characteristic amounts (e.g., colors, motions, or shapes of the object) are
indicative of characteristics of a temperate image stored in a scene, and the
scene’s characteristic or temperate image is compared to a template’s
characteristic or temperate image to determine scene changes. Moriya Tflf 2,
79, 81. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Moriya describes one
or more scenes containing graphic elements including an image. Ans. 4.
Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 6, 9-12, 15, and 18—20, because Appellants
argue for patentability based on the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2, 3, 6, 9-12, 15, and
18-20 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Obviousness Rejections
Because Appellants have not provided separate patentability
arguments for the obviousness rejections of claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, and
17 over the combination of Moriya and Peltotalo/Bourges, any such
arguments are waived. Consequently, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of the cited claims for the same reasons as claim 1. See App. Br. 7.
4
Appeal 2016-002817
Application 13/541,598
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims
1-20.
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
5