Ex Parte Yoshida

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 16, 2016

13389767 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2016)

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.
13/389,767 02/09/2012 Hiroshi Yoshida Q128739 8727
23373 7590 12/20/2016
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
EXAMINER
MCCRAY, CLARENCE D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2458
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2016 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
sughrue@sughrue.com
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIROSHI YOSHIDA
Appeal 2016-001296
Application 13/389,767
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
JOHN R. KENNY Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 3—14, 17—28,
31—34, and 43—62 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 4—5. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to “a distribution system including a server
device which distributes media data representing content and a client device
which receives media data from the server device.” Specification 1.
Appeal 2016-001296
Application 13/389,767
Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
3. A distribution system comprising a server device and a
client device which are adapted to be communicable with each
other, wherein
the server device is adapted to be able to transmit, to the
client device, media data which is formed by encoding content at
an arbitrary media rate among a plurality of different media rates,
the client device is adapted to, while receiving the media
data transmitted by the server device, store received data of the
media data in a storage device and reproduce the content based
on the stored data, and
the distribution system further comprises:
a rate output unit that outputs a combination of a
transmission rate and a media rate based on an objective
function, the objective function being a function in which a
transmission rate representing a data quantity of the media data
transmitted by the server device per unit time and the media rate
respectively serve as variables, and also a function in which a
Quality of Experience value is determined so as to
correspond to the variables, the Quality of Experience value
being a value representing Quality of Experience which is a
service quality experienced by a user of the client device when
the user views the content reproduced by the client device, and
a media data transmission unit that transmits, by the server
device, the media data encoded at the output media rate, to the
client device at the output transmission rate, wherein
the rate output unit is adapted to output a combination of
the transmission rate and the media rate corresponding to a
Quality of Experience value representing highest Quality of
Experience, among combinations of the transmission rate and the
media rate satisfying a predetermined constraint condition, and
the objective function is set such that Quality of
Experience represented by the Quality of Experience value
improves as the transmission rate becomes lower.
2
Appeal 2016-001296
Application 13/389,767
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 3—5, 12—14, 17—19, 26—28, 31—34, and 43—62 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Aaron (US Patent
Application Publication Number 2010/0248643 Al; published September
30, 2010). Final Rejection 4^48.
Claims 6—11 and 20-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Aaron and Yokota (US Patent Application
Publication Number 2011/0205922 Al; published August 25, 2011). Final
Rejection 48—59.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 3, 2015), the Answer (mailed
September 11, 2015), and the Final Rejection (mailed December 10, 2014)
for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those
arguments Appellant actually raised in the Brief.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief, except where
noted.
Anticipation rejection
Appellant argues Aaron fails to teach having “a rate output unit that
outputs a combination of a transmission rate and a media rate based on an
objective function ... the Quality of Experience value being a value
representing Quality of Experience which is a service quality experienced by
3
Appeal 2016-001296
Application 13/389,767
a user of the client device when the user views the content reproduced by the
client device,” as recited in independent claim 3. Appeal Brief 6—7.
Appellant further argues that “Aaron merely describes that the intelligent
adaptation node 114 can be or can comprise a variable rate codec to facilitate
setting and generating various desired data rates to facilitate communication
between the data source 112 and the UE 102” in Figure 1. Appeal Brief 8.
Appellant contends “that it is impossible to reach the configuration
described in the independent claims of ‘outputting a combination of a
transmission rate and a media rate’ based on the teaching of various types
of data rates being included in the data rates disclosed in Aaron.” Appeal
Brief 9. Appellant further contends:
Aaron further provides information regarding “rate coding
information,” “output data Rate”, QoS/QoE and “rate adaption
rule” (see Aaron, paragraph [0098]). However, Aaron fails to
teach or suggest that the “objective function which is a function
in which a transmission rate and the media rate respectively
serve as variables” is set. According to the “rate adaption rule”
of Aaron, “the transmission rate” and “the media rate” are not
respectively variables. Therefore, the “objective function” as
recited in claim 3 is not taught or suggested by Aaron.
Appeal Brief 9.
The Examiner finds Aaron teaches in paragraph 94 the limitation “a
rate output unit that outputs a combination of a transmission rate and a
media rate based on an objective function,” recited in claim 3. Final
Rejection 5. The Examiner also finds Aaron teaches the claimed “objective
function” in paragraph 94. Final Rejection 5—6. Furthermore, the Examiner
relied on Aaron’s paragraph 98 to teach the claimed “Quality of Experience”
and not the “objective function” as Appellant argues. Final Rejection 6;
Appeal Brief 9. Appellant did not address the Examiner’s findings in regard
4
Appeal 2016-001296
Application 13/389,767
to paragraphs 94 and 98 with any specificity in order to determine if the
anticipation rejection was erroneous. Therefore, we do not find Appellant’s
arguments persuasive because Appellant failed to address the Examiner’s
findings. We sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 3, as
well as, claims 4, 5, 12—14, 17—19, 26—28, 31—34, and 43—62 not separately
argued. See Appeal Brief 10.
Obviousness Rejection
Appellant contends that the obviousness grounds of rejection are
“legally and technically inaccurate, and are in error” and submits that
Yokota fails to remedy the noted deficiencies of Aaron. Appeal Brief 10.
We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive because we did not find
Aaron deficient in light of the arguments presented by Appellant. Therefore
we sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim 20, as well as,
dependent claims 6—11 and 21—25 not separately argued. See Appeal Brief
10.
DECISION
The Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 3—5, 12—14, 17—19,
26—28, 31—34, and 43—62 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 6—11 and 20—25 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
5