Ex Parte Xu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 28, 201613355154 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 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. 13/355,154 01/20/2012 Yangpo Xu HUAW02-56551 1956 90073 7590 Docket Clerk/HTCL P.O. Drawer 800889 Dallas, TX 75380 12/30/2016 EXAMINER ALAM, MUSHFIKH I ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2426 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/30/2016 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): patents @ munckwilson. com munckwilson @ gmail. com uspatent@huawei.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YANGPO XU, PEIYUN DI, XIN LIU, CHANGQI HU, ZIXUAN ZOU, CHANGQUAN AI, YEKUI WANG, and WEIE ZHANG Appeal 2015-007254 Application 13/355,154 Technology Center 2400 Before: HUNG H. BUI, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1— 16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2015-007254 Application 13/355,154 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to media stream services. App. Br. 8. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for implementing stream services, the method comprising: determining, by a server, a response message, wherein the response message comprises: at least one of an interval between a first data stream and a second data stream, latest data information of the second data stream, and rate change point information of the first data stream; and sending, by the server, the first data stream and the response message to a receiving end, to enable the receiving end to perform corresponding operation according to the response message. REJECTIONS Claims 1,2, 4—11, and 13—16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Smith (US 2009/0077255 Al; published Mar. 19, 2009). Final Act. (mailed Apr. 3, 2014) 2—6. Claims 3 and 12 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Smith and Yampanis (US 8,079,053 B2; issued Dec. 13, 2011). Final Act. 6—8. ANALYSIS Appellants argue error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1 because, according to Appellants, Smith does not describe a server determining any of “an interval between a first data stream and a second data stream, latest data information of the second data stream, and rate change point information of the first data stream.” App. Br. 10, 13—18. Appellants 2 Appeal 2015-007254 Application 13/355,154 also argue that Smith does not describe “sending, by the server, the first data stream and the response message to a receiving end, (to enable the receiving end to perform corresponding operation according to the response message).” Id. The Examiner finds that Smith describes a client module issuing a “join request” to a server asking to join an ongoing multicast stream. Ans. 3^4 (citing Smith | 62). The Examiner finds that the server’s response, which instructs the client “to switch streaming services,” “inherently contain[s] information about the stream that is being switched to (i.e. ‘latest data information of second stream’)” and meets the claimed “response message.” Id. at 4 (citing Smith || 65—67). The client thereafter fulfills the request. Id. 4—5. In view of the foregoing express disclosure of Smith, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings that Smith describes all limitations of Appellants’ claim 1. Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings. In particular, Appellants assert that the Examiner “has not established that ‘inherently there will be communication between the server and the client module’ during the join interval” because, “Smith contemplates at least one scenario in which the server does not communicate with the client module during the join interval.” Reply Br. 4 (citing Smith | 67). Appellants’ argument does not persuade us of error because the Examiner’s finding is not limited to the scenario to which Appellants refer. Ans. 3^4. Appellants’ argument does not address the Examiner’s finding that communication between the server and the client module is inherent when the join request is fulfilled. 3 Appeal 2015-007254 Application 13/355,154 Appellants also argue that “the Examiner’s Answer has not established that the ‘inherent communication’ will ‘inherently contain information about the stream that is being switched’” because “in a scenario where the server does not communicate with the client module during the join interval, there will be no information about the stream that is being switched.” Reply Br. 4. Here again, Appellants overlook that the Examiner’s finding is directed to scenarios wherein the join request is fulfilled and not to “a scenario where the server does not communicate with the client module during the join interval.” Ans. 3^4. We also are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ argument that Smith also discloses the server “transmitting] resource information taken from unicast stream 114 at a below-nominal rate.” Id. The server also sending data from the unicast stream (i.e., the first data stream) does not negate the Examiner’s finding that Smith discloses the server necessarily sending “latest data information of the second data stream” in cases where the join request is fulfilled. Id. Similarly with respect to the “sending” limitation, Appellants argue that, because Smith discloses that “the server module may or may not transmit beyond the start of the join interval,” the transmission by the server does not “‘enable the receiving end to perform corresponding operation according to the response message,’ as recited in Claim 1.” Reply Br. 6. Appellants assert that “[i]f such a transmission did, in fact, enable a receiving end to perform corresponding operation according to the response message, then the lack of such a transmission would mean that the receiving end would not be able to perform corresponding operation according to the response message.” Id. 6—7. This argument is unpersuasive of error because 4 Appeal 2015-007254 Application 13/355,154 the Examiner’s finding is not limited to the scenarios in Smith wherein the server does not transmit beyond the start of the join interval. Ans. 4—5. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appellants do not separately argue the rejection of claims 2, 4— 11, and 13—16. Appellants argue the rejection of claims 3 and 12 based on claim 1, adding only that Yampanis is not relied upon to cure the deficiencies of Smith. We therefore sustain the rejections of claims 2—16. DECISION We sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—16. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation