Ex Parte Shen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 19, 201310300246 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte BO SHEN and SUNG-JU LEE Appeal 2013-0037891 Application 10/300,246 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A JEFFERY, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company. (App. Br. 1.) In prior Appeal 2009-10924 (dated January 17, 2012), we previously reversed the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-13, 16, 18-22, 24, 28, and 29. Appeal 2013-003789 Application 10/300,246 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-13, 16, 18-22, 24, 26, 28, and 29. Claims 4, 5, 7, 9, 14, 15, 17, 23, 25, and 27 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellants’ Invention Appellants invented a network server (caching proxy) for replicating and caching content objects. In particular, upon receiving a first version of a content object from a content source (110), the caching proxy (120) transcodes the first version to generate a second version of the content object thereon. The caching proxy then decides according to a caching strategy whether to cache the first version, the second version, both versions, or neither version. (Fig. 4, Spec. 15, ll. 14-29.) Upon receiving a request from a client device (130) for the content object, the caching proxy (120) verifies that the client’s version of the requested content object is transcodable from the second version, and transcodes the second version before sending it to the client. (Figs. 1 & 3, Spec. 14, 1-38.) Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as follows: 1. A method of delivering content, said method comprising: accessing a first version of a content object residing in a cache of a caching proxy; Appeal 2013-003789 Application 10/300,246 3 transcoding at said caching proxy said first version to create a second version of said content object; making a decision to cache one or more versions of said content object at said caching proxy, said decision comprising a choice between caching only said first version, caching only said second version, caching both of said first and second versions, and caching neither of said first and second versions, said decision made according to a first caching strategy; implementing said decision; monitoring access behavior associated with requests for said content object; depending on said access behavior, choosing between said first caching strategy and a second caching strategy, wherein a decision made according to said second caching strategy would be different from said decision made according to said first caching strategy; receiving from a client device a request for said content object, said client device having attributes corresponding to a version of said content object that is transcodable from said second version; and transcoding said second version according to said attributes. Prior Art Relied Upon Mighdoll 5,918,013 Jun. 29, 1999 Xueyan Tang et al., “Streaming Media Caching Algorithms for Transcoding Proxies”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Parallel Processing, IEEE (2002). Cheng-Yue Chang & Ming-Syan Chen, “Exploring Aggregate Effect with Weighted Transcoding Graphs for Efficient Cache Replacement in Appeal 2013-003789 Application 10/300,246 4 Transcoding Proxies”, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE’02), IEEE (2002). Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows: 1. Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 12, 13, 16, 20-22, 24 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tang and Chang. 2. Claims 10, 11, 18, 19, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Tang, Chang, and Mighdoll. ANALYSIS We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 8-15, and the Reply Brief, pages 2-6. Dispositive Issue: Have Appellants shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Tang and Chang teaches or suggests a caching proxy deciding to cache one or more versions of a content object, wherein the caching proxy caches (1) a first version only, (2) a second version only, (3) both versions or (4) neither, as recited claim 1? Appellants argue that the proffered combination does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations emphasized above. (App. Br. 9-10, Reply Br. 2-4.) In particular, Appellants argue that Tang discloses an adaptive caching algorithm that chooses to cache either a Full-version Only (FVO) or a Appeal 2013-003789 Application 10/300,246 5 Transcoded Version Only (TVO) of an object, but not both or neither. (App. Br. 10.) Further, Appellants argue that because Tang teaches caching only a single version, it teaches away from caching multiple versions. (Id. 11-13.) In response, the Examiner finds that because the claim language only requires that either a first version, a second version, both or neither be cached, Tang’s disclosure of caching only one of two available versions teaches the disputed limitations. (Ans. 10-15.) On the record before us we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, which recites, inter alia, “making a decision to cache one or more versions”. We note at the outset that there is no material dispute as to the pertinent facts in this appeal. In particular, as set forth above, both the Examiner and Appellants agree that Tang discloses choosing between two versions (FVO or TVO) of an object to thereby cache a single version only. However, Appellants dispute the Examiner’s finding that the cited disclosure teaches the disputed limitations. We agree with the Examiner that because the claim language is couched in the alternative (i.e. one or more versions), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, it suffices that the prior art teaches caching at least one version to meet the claim language. In other words, the disputed limitation recitation only requires that the caching proxy decide to cache only the first version, only the second version, both versions, or neither. Thus, while the disputed limitation can be construed to encompass caching more than one version or neither version, such a claim construction is not mandatory. That is, because the disputed limitation also allows caching single version only, it Appeal 2013-003789 Application 10/300,246 6 suffices that the prior art teaches caching a single version from a plurality of versions to meet the claim language. We are therefore satisfied that the cited Tang disclosure teaches the disputed limitations. Consequently, Appellants’ argument that Tang is not properly combined with Chang for allegedly teaching away from caching two versions is not persuasive. It follows that Appellants have not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Tang and Chang renders independent claim 1 unpatentable. Regarding claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 10-13, 16, 18-22, 24, 26, 28, and 29, Appellants reiterate substantially the same arguments submitted for patentability of claim 1 above. (App. Br. 13-16.) As discussed above, these arguments are not persuasive. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.37(c)(1)(vii). Further, Appellants argue that Mighdoll does not cure the noted deficiencies of the Tang-Chang combination. (Id.) However, as discussed above, these arguments are unavailing because we find no such deficiencies in the Tang- Chang combination for Mighdoll to remedy. Consequently, Appellants have failed to show error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 10-13, 16, 18-22, 24, 26, 28, and 29. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-13, 16, 18-22, 24, 26, 28, and 29. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). Appeal 2013-003789 Application 10/300,246 7 AFFIRMED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation