Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 10, 2014

10612401 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/612,401 07/01/2003 Ye-Kui Wang 088245-0152 3233
23524 7590 02/10/2014
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
3000 K STREET N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109
EXAMINER
DUONG, CHRISTINE T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/10/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YE-KUI WANG and EMRE BARIS AKSU
___________

Appeal 2011-000739
Application 10/612,401
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000739
Application 10/612,401

2

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection all
pending claims (1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 15-20, 24-28, and 30-32). Claims 2, 4, 12-
14, 21-23, and 29 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to streaming media from a streaming
server to a streaming client via a transmission channel. Spec. 1:6-7.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative with respective disputed
limitations in italics:
1. A method for streaming media from a streaming
server to a streaming client via a transmission channel, wherein
the method comprises:
receiving a first request for media from a streaming client
at a streaming server;
sending a response to the received first request from the
streaming server to the streaming client, the response including
a plurality of error resilience levels supportable by the
streaming server in sending the media to the streaming client,
wherein the plurality of error resilience levels includes a first
error resilience level indicating a default error resilience level
of the streaming server and a second error resilience level
indicating an alternative error resilience level;
receiving a second request from the streaming client at
the streaming server, the second request including an error
resilience level selected from the plurality of error resilience
levels; and
sending the media from the streaming server to the
streaming client based on the error resilience level.
Appeal 2011-000739
Application 10/612,401

3

THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 15-20, 24-28, and 30-32 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Matsui (US 2002/0141740 A1) and
Park (US 2003/0195979 A1). Ans. 4-21.

ISSUE
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to Appellants’ Briefs
(Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed May 18, 2010 and Reply Brief (“Reply
Br.”) filed September 27, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.” mailed
August 20, 2010) for the respective positions of Appellants and the
Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the
Appeal Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issue: Has the
Examiner erred by finding the combination of Matsui and Park teaches or
suggests “wherein the plurality of error resilience levels includes a first error
resilience level indicating a default error resilience level of the streaming
server and a second error resilience level indicating an alternative error
resilience level” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Matsui teaches all steps of method claim 1
including sending a response to the streaming client including a plurality of
error resilience levels supportable by the streaming server and receiving a
response from the streaming client including a selected error resilience level
Appeal 2011-000739
Application 10/612,401

4

but “does not explicitly disclose a default error resilience level of the
streaming server.” Ans. 4-6. The Examiner further finds Park discloses a
default error resilience level as a predetermined coding format (a “general
coding format”) and articulates a reason for combining the teachings of
Matsui and Park. Ans. 7. Appellants argue that Park’s predetermined
coding format does not teach a default error resilience level. App. Br. 15.
More specifically, Appellants argue, “[b]ased on the plain meaning, a default
value indicates an automatic assignment of a value to a parameter unless the
value is changed to another value based on some other determination,
action” and thus conclude that Park’s general coding format is not “in any
way related to a ‘default error resilience level.’” Id.; see also Reply Br.
5-7. We are not persuaded.
The Examiner finds Park discloses the server informing a client (a
“terminal”) of at least two supported coding formats, packetizes a stream in
a predetermined coding format (a default error resilience level), and
modifies the coding format (an alternative level) according to the state of the
network. Ans. 23 (citing Park ¶¶ 0042, 0049). The Examiner applies
Appellants’ definition of default value to Park explaining, “a default value is
an automatic assignment of a value to a parameter (‘the
general/predetermined coding format’) unless the value is changed to
another value (‘the packet resilient/modified coding format’) based on some
other determination, action (‘the network has an abnormal state’).” Ans. 24.
The Examiner, therefore, finds Park “shows multiple coding formats, at least
one interpreted as a default error resilience level and at least another one
interpreted as an alternative error resilience level.” We agree.
Appeal 2011-000739
Application 10/612,401

5

Appellants further argue Park changes the coding format based on
network status and thus fails to disclose a default error resilience level. App.
Br. 15-17. Specifically, Appellants quote various teachings of Park and
conclude, “[t]hus, according to Park, the server provides coding formats to
the terminal and the terminal may select a coding format based on the state
of the network. If the network is in an abnormal state, the coding format
selected is modified into a packet resilient coding format.” App. Br. 16. We
agree with Appellants’ characterization of Park but are unpersuaded that the
Examiner erred. The Examiner relies on Matsui, not Park, for the step of
receiving a second request including a selected error resilience level from
among a plurality of supported levels. Ans. 7 (citing Matsui, ¶ 0170).
Furthermore, nothing in claim 1 limits the basis for the client (terminal) to
select an error resilience level from the server’s supported levels.
Appellants further argue Park’s general coding format (the
predetermined coding format) is not a default value because Park’s coding
format is always selected based on the network state. App. Br. 17-18.
Appellants, therefore, contend, “Park has no need for a default coding
format, which is used automatically if no other selection is made, because
the selection is always based on the network state.” Id. We are unpersuaded
for the same reason—the Examiner relies on Matsui for receiving a response
from a client including a selected error resilience level and nothing in the
claim limits the basis for the client to select an error resilience level from the
server’s supported levels.
In view of the above discussions, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred by finding the combination of Matsui and Park teaches or
suggests “wherein the plurality of error resilience levels includes a first error
Appeal 2011-000739
Application 10/612,401

6

resilience level indicating a default error resilience level of the streaming
server and a second error resilience level indicating an alternative error
resilience level” as recited in claim 1. Appellants do not separately argue
error in the rejection of claims 3, 5-7, 9-11, 15-20, 24-28, and 30-32. App.
Br. 18.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 15-20,
24-28, and 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

gvw