Ex Parte Setlur et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 9, 201613541598 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation