Ex Parte Silberstein et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 15, 2018

14079379 (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/079,379 11/13/2013
86421 7590 05/17/2018
Cisco Systems, Inc. - Patent Team
(PatCapGroup Customer Number)
SJC 10/5
170 W. Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134-1706
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rebecca Lynn Braynard Silberstein
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.
PARC-20130025-US-NP 7867
EXAMINER
VO,CECILEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2153
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/17/2018 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):
peggsu@cisco.com
paralegal @cisco.com
khallock@cisco.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte REBECCA LYNN BRA YNARD SILBERSTEIN, MICHAEL F.
PLASS, and ROGER C. MEIKE
Appeal2017-007642
Application 14/079,379 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and NORMAN H.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Palo Alto Research Center Incorporated as the real
party in interest. (App. Br. 5.)
Appeal2017-007642
Application 14/079,379
THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to processing
a data stream to assist other devices to pre-fetch elements of the data stream,
out-of-sequence, for uninterrupted playback. (Abstract.) Independent claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
segmenting, by a computer, digital content into a
sequence of content objects;
determining a target content object of the sequence of
content objects, wherein the target content object is to be
processed out-of-sequence;
determining a source content object of the sequence of
content objects, wherein the target content object is to be
processed after the source content object;
inserting a reference into the source content object,
wherein the reference indicates that the target content object is
to be processed following the source content object, wherein the
reference is distinct from a name for the source content object;
and
storing the sequence of content objects, wherein the
sequence includes the reference inserted into the source content
object.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 7, 8, 14--1 7, 2 0, and 21 under 3 5
U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Mosek et al. (US 2007 /0276989
Al, pub. Nov. 29, 2007) (hereinafter "Mosek"), Gargi et al. (US 7,747,625
B2, issued June 29, 2010) (hereinafter "Gargi"), and Lango et al. (US
7,376,790 B2, issued May 20, 2008) (hereinafter "Lango"). (Final Act. 4--
9.)
2
Appeal2017-007642
Application 14/079,379
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, 9, 18, 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Mosek, Gargi, Lango, and Shteyn (US
7,529,806 Bl, issued May 5, 2009) (hereinafter "Shteyn")). (Final Act. 9-
11.)
The Examiner rejected claims 10-13 and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Shteyn, Gargi, and Lango. (Final Act.
11-15.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue: 2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Mosek,
Gargi, and Lango teaches or suggests the limitations in independent claims 1
and 14, and whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Shteyn, Gargi, and Lango teaches or suggests the limitations in independent
claims 10 and 23. (App. Br. 19-38.)
ANALYSIS
For the limitation of independent claims 1 and 14, "inserting a
reference into the source content object, wherein the reference indicates that
the target content object is to be processed following the source content
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Oct. 28, 2016) (herein, "App.
Br."); the Reply Brief (filed Apr. 24, 2017) (herein, "Reply Br."); the Final
Office Action (mailed May 31, 2016) (herein, "Final Act."); and the
Examiner's Answer (mailed Feb. 22, 2017) (herein, "Ans.") for the
respective details.
3
Appeal2017-007642
Application 14/079,379
object," the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Lango of an "object
number" included in an "object name stream" associated with media storage
objects. (Final Act. 5---6; Lango Fig. 4, col. 13, 11. 48-53.) However, as
Appellants argue, "Lango merely discloses that an 'object is assigned an
object number based on the position of the portion of the media data stored
by the object within the logical data stream."' (App. Br. 27, quoting Lango
col. 11, 11. 55-57.) Thus, the object number of Lango references the object
that corresponds to the object name stream that contains the object number,
and provides no indication that a separate "target content object" is to be
processed following the object corresponding to the object number, as
required by the claims.
The Examiner relies on the same object number of Lango for the
claim 10 and 23 limitation, "determining that the received content object
includes a reference to a data item from a target content object." (Final Act.
13.) However, as Appellants argue, and as discussed above, the object
numbers of Lango are not used to determine target content objects. (App.
Br. 31-32.)
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to find the Examiner
errs in rejecting independent claims 1, 10, 14, and 23.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the rejections of
independent claims 1 and 14 as obvious over Mosek, Gargi, and Lango, and
of independent claims 10 and 23 as obvious over Shteyn, Gargi, and Lango.
We also do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2--4, 7, 8,
15-17, 20, and21 overMosek, Gargi, and Lango, of claims 5, 6, 9, 18, 19,
4
Appeal2017-007642
Application 14/079,379
and 22 over Mosek, Gargi, Lango, and Shteyn, and of claims 11-13, 24, and
25 over Shteyn, Gargi, and Lango, which claims depend from claims 1, 10,
14, or 23.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-25.
REVERSED
5