14596796 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 2020)

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 8, 2020

14596796 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 2020)

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. 14/596,796 01/14/2015 Youngkwon Lim 2014.04.003.SR0 7711 106809 7590 05/08/2020 Docket Clerk - SAMS P.O. Drawer 800889 Dallas, TX 75380 EXAMINER MENDAYE, KIDEST H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2457 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/08/2020 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): munckwilson@gmail.com patent.srad@samsung.com patents@munckwilson.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YOUNGKWON LIM and IMED BOUAZIZI Appeal 2019-002158 Application 14/596,796 Technology Center 2400 Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges. RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–6, 11, 12, and 14–16, all the pending claims in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the assignee of this application, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-002158 Application 14/596,796 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims relate to methods and apparatuses for managing received data by a client device and indicating data removal management by a server. Spec., Abstr. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for managing received data by a client device, the method comprising: receiving, by the client device, a message from a server, the message including information about a number of modes for removal of the data from a buffer at the client device; selecting, by the client device, a mode for removal of the data from the buffer with a maximum required buffer size among the modes indicated by the information about the modes in the received message; and removing, by the client device, the data from the buffer based on the selected mode, wherein the modes comprise a mode where the client device removes complete Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) media transport (MMT) processing units (MPUs), a mode where the client device removes complete movie fragments, and a mode where the client device removes complete MMT fragmentation units (MFUs). Appeal 2019-002158 Application 14/596,796 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Noronha Bao US 2003/0223466 A1 US 2014/0082146 A1 Dec. 4, 2003 Mar. 20, 2014 Park Kyungmo et al., Study of ISO/IEC CD 23008-1 MPEG Media Transport, MPEG-H Systems (2012). REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 11, 12, and 14–16 stand rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Noronha, Bao, and Park. Final Act. 7, 10.2 ANALYSIS Appellant contends that the combination of Noronha, Bao, and Park fails to teach or suggest “the modes comprise a mode where the client device removes complete Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) media transport (MMT) processing units (MPUs), a mode where the client device removes complete movie fragments, and a mode where the client device removes complete MMT fragmentation units (MFUs),” as recited by claim 1. Appeal Br. 11–17; Reply Br. 2–5. Appellant contends that in section 9.3 of Park, “[m]erely removing an MMT packet at time ts+Δ does not teach or suggest removing a complete MPU, a complete movie fragment or a complete MFU.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellant also contends that section 9.4 of Park “mentions that MPUs may be fragmented or aggregated based on their size” but that this teaching does 2 Appellant’s After-Final Response (“Resp.”) mailed October 5, 2017 canceled claim 3 and amended the limitation of claim 3 into claims 1 and 11. Resp. 2. The Examiner entered the amendment for purposes of appeal. Adv. Act. 1. Appeal 2019-002158 Application 14/596,796 4 not disclose the three claimed removal modes. Id. at 15. Appellant further contends that section 9.1 of Park “merely describes generic buffering operations.” Id. at 15–16. Finally, Appellant contends that section 5.2.4 of Park merely “provides a generic definition” for the term MFU. Id. at 16. The Examiner finds that: Park[] discloses, in page 91, sections 9.3–9.4, . . . [that] the MMT packet de-encapsulation buffer is used to perform MMT packet processing before output to the upper layers. The output of the MMT Protocol processor may either be the MFU payload (in low-delay operation) or a complete MPU. Ans. 6; see also Adv. Act. 2; Final Act. 10–11 (similar findings for claim 3, which Appellant amended into claim 1 after Final). We agree with Appellant that the passages of Park relied on by the Examiner do not teach or suggest each of the three claimed modes. See Reply Br. 5. For example, Park’s processor outputs either the MFU payload or a complete MPU, which at most teaches or suggests the claimed MPU mode (“a mode where the client device removes complete . . . (MPUs)”) and the claimed MFU mode (“a mode where the client device removes complete . . . (MFUs).”). See Park § 9.4. However, we can find no description in Park of all three claimed modes, including a mode for removing “complete movie fragments.” The Examiner has not relied on any of the other cited references to teach this element. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claim 1 and similar claim 11 and their dependent claims. We do not reach Appellant’s further allegations of error because we find the issue discussed above to be dispositive of the rejection of all the pending claims. Appeal 2019-002158 Application 14/596,796 5 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4–6, 11, 12, 14– 16 103 Noronha, Bao, Park 1, 2, 4–6, 11, 12, 14–16 REVERSED