Ex Parte Varvello et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2017

13632675 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 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.
13/632,675 10/01/2012 Matteo Varvello LUTZ201403US01/810598US 2400
48116 7590 05/02/2017
FAY STTARPF/T TTf’F.NT
EXAMINER
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor JAHNIGE, CAROLINE H
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2017 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):
docketing @ faysharpe.com
ipsnarocp @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTEO VARVELLO and
KRISHNA P. PUTTASWAMY NAGA
Appeal 2016-007096
Application 13/632,6751
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1—25. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Alcatel Lucent. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-007096
Application 13/632,675
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to increasing peer-to-peer traffic
localization for content distribution by performing localization at a data
chunk level rather than at a file or named content level. Spec. 1—3, Abstract.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A method for increasing localization of peer-to-
peer (P2P) traffic for content distribution in a communication
network, comprising:
distributing named content from one or more hosting
peers of a P2P network to one or more requesting peers of the
P2P network in conjunction with one or more tracking nodes of
the P2P network via a communication network using
fingerprint chunk messages that carry corresponding fingerprint
names and data chunks;
wherein each named content available via the P2P
network is divisible into data chunks that are identified by
fingerprint names such that a content fingerprint list for each
named content identifies the fingerprint name for each data
chunk of the corresponding named content;
wherein the fingerprint names are based on content data
in the corresponding data chunk such that data chunks with the
same content data are represented by the same fingerprint name,
data chunks with different content data are represented by
different fingerprint names, and equivalent fingerprint names
identify equivalent data chunks with equivalent content data;
wherein, for each data chunk of a particular named
content, at least when the corresponding data chunk is available
for distribution from a plurality of hosting peers to a particular
requesting peer, selection of a particular hosting peer from the
plurality of hosting peers for distribution of each data chunk to
the particular requesting peer is based at least in part on
comparing at least one localization characteristic for the
2
Appeal 2016-007096
Application 13/632,675
particular requesting peer to corresponding localization
characteristics for the plurality of hosting peers with preference
to the particular hosting peer that localizes P2P traffic for each
fingerprint chunk message in conjunction with distributing the
particular named content to the particular requesting peer using
fingerprint chunk messages.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 11—18, 22, 23, and 25 as
obvious over Hudson (US 2010/0011061 Al; pub. Jan. 14, 2010), McCanne
(US 2011/0267207 Al; pub. Nov. 3, 2011), Czechowski (US 2009/0100128
Al; pub. Apr. 16, 2009), and Chokkalingam (Arun Chokkalingam and
Firasath Riyaz, BitTorrent Protocol Specification V 1.0 (CSI 5321, 2004)).
Final Act. 7—26.2
The Examiner rejected claims 3,4, 6—10, 19-21, and 24 as obvious
over Hudson, McCanne, Czechowski, Chokkalingam, and Abdelaziz (US
2004/0044727 Al; pub. Mar. 4, 2004). Id. at 26-A7.
ISSUES
Claims 1,15, and 23 are the independent claims on appeal.
Appellants direct arguments to all independent claims. Appellants argue, on
pages 6—14 of the Appeal Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 is in error. Appellants’ arguments present us with the following
issues:
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed December 3,
2015 (“App. Br.”), Reply Brief filed July 12, 2016 (“Reply Br.”), Final
Action mailed June 18, 2015 (Final Act.”), and the Examiner’s Answer
mailed May 13, 2016 (“Ans.”).
3
Appeal 2016-007096
Application 13/632,675
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Hudson, McCanne, Czechowski, and Chokkalingam teaches
fingerprint chunk messages that carry corresponding fingerprint
names and data chunks?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Hudson, McCanne, Czechowski, and Chokkalingam teaches
data chunks that are identified by fingerprint names such that a
content fingerprint list for each named content identifies the
fingerprint name?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Hudson, McCanne, Czechowski, and Chokkalingam teaches
data chunks with the same content data are represented by the
same fingerprint name, and data chunks with different content
data are represented by different fingerprint names?
Appellants’ arguments, on pages 15—21 of the Appeal Brief, directed
to the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 15, and on pages 22-28 of
the Brief directed to independent claim 23, address limitations similar to
those in claim 1 and present us with similar arguments. Thus, Appellants’
arguments directed to independent claims 15 and 23 present us with the
same issues as claim 1.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contention that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
4
Appeal 2016-007096
Application 13/632,675
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We concur with the
Examiner’s conclusion of unpatentability.
Issue 1
Appellants assert that the combination of Hudson, McCanne,
Czechowski, and Chokkalingam fails to teach fingerprint chunk messages
that carry corresponding fingerprint names and data chunks. App. Br. 7—11.
Specifically, Appellants argue that the claimed fingerprint name is different
from the piece index identified in the Chokkalingam request and piece
messages, as cited by the Examiner, because the claimed fingerprint name is
based on the content data of the corresponding data chunk, where the piece
index is based on the index of the piece of the file rather than the content of
the piece of the file. Id. at 9; Reply Br. 5—6; see Chokkalingam 19.
Additionally, Appellants argue that the claimed data chunks in the
fingerprint chunk message are more akin to the pieces of data than the
blocks, which are the data that will be exchanged between peers as segments
of the piece, in Chokkalingam’s piece messages. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5—6;
see Chokkalingam 12. Appellants further argue that the Chokkalingam
block is a subset of the piece and cannot be the entire piece. Reply Br. 7—8;
see Chokkalingam 19.
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in that
Appellant’s arguments fail to address the Examiner’s findings. The
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants’ arguments
on pages 3^4 of the Answer. We have reviewed the Examiner’s response
and the evidence relied upon by the Examiner and concur with the
Examiner’s conclusion of unpatentability. Specifically, the Examiner found
that Hudson discloses a peer-to-peer content distribution system where a
5
Appeal 2016-007096
Application 13/632,675
named content file is divided into segments (data chunks) which are named
using content unit and segment sequence identifiers (fingerprint names),
where a client or peer node can then request and receive the named
segments. Ans. 3. The Examiner further finds that while Hudson is silent
on the particular format of the request and receive messages, one of ordinary
skill in the art would modify Hudson to incorporate Chokkalingam’s proven
message formats for the peer-to-peer BitTorrent protocol for a requesting
client to request a content segment and receive the designated segment. Id.
Additionally, the Examiner finds that in Chokkalingam’s messages, the
index is like a fingerprint name for a data chunk, because it is a unique
identifier of the content piece, and the piece message is like the claimed
fingerprint chunk message because the message has the index (fingerprint
name) and the block requested (data chunk). Id. Appellants mischaracterize
the Examiner’s rejection as relying on Chokkalingam alone for the claimed
fingerprint chunk messages, fingerprint names, and data chunks, and fail to
address the teachings of the combination of references in the findings of the
Examiner along with the rationale provided by the Examiner, as stated
above. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981). Appellants have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Hudson, McCanne, Czechowski, and Chokkalingam teaches using
fingerprint chunk messages that carry corresponding fingerprint names and
data chunks as required by claim 1 and similarly required by claims 15 and
23.
Issue 2
Appellants assert that the combination of Hudson, McCanne,
Czechowski, and Chokkalingam fails to teach data chunks that are identified
6
Appeal 2016-007096
Application 13/632,675
by fingerprint names such that a content fingerprint list for each named
content identifies the fingerprint name. App. Br. 11—13. Specifically,
Appellants argue that Hudson does not mention the claimed fingerprint
names or the claimed content fingerprint list. Id. at 11; Reply Br. 8—9.
Additionally, Appellants argue that the content manifest file of Hudson is
different from the claimed fingerprint list because the combination of
Hudson’s content unit identifiers and segment sequence identifiers is
different from the claimed fingerprint name. Reply Br. 9.
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error because they
fail to address the content of the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner has
provided a comprehensive response to Appellants’ arguments on page 4 of
the Answer. We have reviewed the Examiner’s response and the evidence
relied upon by the Examiner and concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Hudson discloses a
named content file, divided into segments (data chunks), which are named
using unique identifiers, namely content unit and segment sequence
identifiers. Ans. 4. The Examiner further finds Hudson discloses a content
manifest file (content fingerprint list) that includes all content unit identifiers
and segment sequence identifiers (fingerprint names) for each segment of
content. Id. Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error
because they recite the claim limitations and argue that the references do not
disclose the claim language and that the teachings cited are insufficient to be
considered a separate argument. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed.
Cir. 2009) (a reference does not have to satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test to
disclose a claimed element). Appellants have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Hudson, McCanne,
7
Appeal 2016-007096
Application 13/632,675
Czechowski, and Chokkalingam teaches data chunks that are identified by
fingerprint names such that a content fingerprint list for each named content
identifies the fingerprint name as required by claim 1 and similarly required
by claims 15 and 23.
Issue 3
Appellants assert that the combination of Hudson, McCanne,
Czechowski, and Chokkalingam fails to teach data chunks with the same
content data are represented by the same fingerprint name, and data chunks
with different content data are represented by different fingerprint names.
App. Br. 13—14. Specifically, Appellants argue that the reference label of
McCanne represents a segment of data and is used to compress the data,
therefore making it different from the claimed fingerprint name because the
claimed fingerprint name is not used as a substitute for the claimed
corresponding data chunk. Id.; Reply Br. 11. Additionally, Appellants
argue that the cited portions of McCanne disclose a compression technique
which replaces data with reference labels and therefore would not work with
the claimed process for segmentation of content data because the fingerprint
names are not substituted for the content data for distribution via a peer-to-
peer network. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 11—13.
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in that they fail
to address the Examiner’s findings. The Examiner has provided a
comprehensive response to Appellants’ arguments on pages 4—5 of the
Answer. We have reviewed the Examiner’s response and the evidence
relied upon by the Examiner and concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of
unpatentability. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Hudson discloses
segmenting a content file (data chunks), where each segment is identified by
8
Appeal 2016-007096
Application 13/632,675
unique identifiers (fingerprint names), so the individual segments can be
identified by each peer for listing and distribution. Ans. 5. The Examiner
further finds McCanne discloses processing input data to identify segments
(data chunks) and associating a unique reference label (fingerprint name)
with each unique segment in a storage device by comparing new segments to
existing segments prior to labeling and storing, where one of ordinary skill
in the art could modify Hudson with the segmentation method of McCanne
to prevent repeated requests for the data chunks that have already been
received. Id. Appellants mischaracterize the Examiner’s rejection as relying
on McCanne for the compression technique and fail to address the
Examiner’s findings regarding the teachings of McCanne for the labeling
convention in the segmentation method in combination with the teachings of
the content file distribution system of Hudson to prevent repeated requests
for equivalent segment data. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981).
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Hudson, McCanne, Czechowski, and Chokkalingam teaches
data chunks with the same content data are represented by the same
fingerprint name, and data chunks with different content data are represented
by different fingerprint names as required by claim 1 and similarly required
by claims 15 and 23.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
determining that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention,
in light of the cited references and the Appellants’ Specification, would have
been led to the subject matter of independent claims 1,15, and 23. As to the
remaining claims 2—14, 16—22, 24, and 25, we likewise are not persuaded
that the Examiner erred where Appellants rely on their arguments as to
9
Appeal 2016-007096
Application 13/632,675
claims 1, 15, and 23. App. Br. 14, 21, 28. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1,15, and 23 and dependent
claims 2—14, 16—22, 24, and 25.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 5, 11—18, 22, 23,
and 25 as obvious over Hudson, McCanne, Czechowski, and Chokkalingam
is AFFIRMED.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 3, 4, 6—10, 19—21, and
24 as obvious over Hudson, McCanne, Czechowski, Chokkalingam, and
Abdelaziz is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
10