VID SCALE INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 12, 2021

2019006773 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2021)

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.
13/745,580 01/18/2013 Yuriy Reznik IVOW_11224US02 2415
15800 7590 03/12/2021
Condo Roccia Koptiw LLP
1800 JFK Boulevard
Suite 1700
Philadelphia, PA 19103
EXAMINER
BENNETT, STUART D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/12/2021 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 YURIY REZNIK, EDUARDO ASBUN, ZHIFENG CHEN,
YAN YE, ELDAD M. ZEIRA, ARIELA ZEIRA, NARESH SONI,
and HANG LIU
________________

Appeal 2019-006773
Application 13/745,580
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOYCE CRAIG, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3‒7, 9‒12, 43, 45‒48, 50, 53, 55‒58, and 60, which are
all the claims pending in this application.1 Claims 2, 8, 13‒42, 44, 49, 51,
52, 54, and 59 have been canceled. Appeal Br. 21‒28. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies VID SCALE, INC., a subsidiary of
InterDigital, Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006773
Application 13/745,580

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to receiving multimedia content at a
device, where the rate at which the multimedia content is processed varies
according to a viewing parameter. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
1. A method for receiving multimedia content with a mobile
device from a network, the mobile device comprising a screen
and a backlight configured to illuminate the screen of the
mobile device, the method comprising:
sending a first HTTP GET request for a first Dynamic
Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH) segment of the
multimedia content to the network;
receiving the first DASH segment of the multimedia
content from the network, the first DASH segment processed at
a first rate;
receiving an input from a dedicated proximity sensor of
the mobile device, the dedicated proximity sensor configured to
turn off the backlight of the screen;
determining to send a second HTTP GET request for a
second DASH segment of the multimedia content processed at
a second rate based on the input from the dedicated proximity
sensor that is configured to turn off the backlight of the screen,
the second rate being less than the first rate;
transmitting the second HTTP GET request for the
second DASH segment of the multimedia content to the
network; and
receiving the second DASH segment of the multimedia
content from the network.
Appeal 2019-006773
Application 13/745,580

3

The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 102, 12, 43, 47, 48, 50, 53, 57, 58, and 60 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Weaver (US
2007/0136772 A1; June 14, 2007), Tilmann (US 2009/0278032 A1;
Nov. 12, 2009), and Stockhammer (US 2012/0259946 A1; Oct. 11, 2012).
Final Act. 5‒14.
Claims 3, 9, 46, and 56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Weaver, Tilmann, Stockhammer, and Bhagavathy (US
2013/0125155 A1; May 16, 2013). Final Act. 14‒18.
Claims 5 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Weaver, Tilmann, Stockhammer, and Raveendran (US 2006/0165176
A1; July 27, 2006). Final Act. 18‒20.
Claims 45 and 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Weaver, Tilmann, Stockhammer, and Dotson (US
2005/0024381 A1; Feb. 3, 2005). Final Act. 20‒22.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because the
combination of Weaver, Tilmann, and Stockhammer does not teach or
suggest “receiving an input from a dedicated proximity sensor of the mobile
device.” Appeal Br. 16‒18; Reply Br. 2‒6. In particular, Appellant argues
Weaver teaches a movement sensor, not a proximity sensor. Appeal Br. 16.
According to Appellant, a proximity sensor is a sensor that detects the

2 In the August 23, 2018 Final Action, claim 10 is not listed in the heading
of the rejection of these claims. Final Act. 5. However, the Examiner
includes an explanation of a rejection of claim 10 in the body of the
rejection. Id. at 9. We treat the omission of claim 10 in the heading of the
rejection as a harmless typographical error.
Appeal 2019-006773
Application 13/745,580

4

proximity of an object, even if that object is not moving, and a movement
sensor is a sensor that detects movement. Id. Appellant argues Weaver only
teaches sensors that detect motion or movement, not proximity sensors. Id.
(citing Weaver ¶ 46). Appellant also argues Tilmann teaches detecting the
presence of a user based on the user’s movement within a particular distance
threshold using a movement sensor, not a proximity sensor. Id. at 17 (citing
Tilmann ¶¶ 11‒12).
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. Weaver teaches a
presence detection application that determines whether a user is present.
Weaver ¶ 46. One manner in which a user’s presence is determined is using
data from a sensor, such as “an accelerometer or other movement or position
sensor that detects movements.” Id. (emphasis added). Weaver teaches
examples of these sensors, including “an infrared transmitter or receiver, any
transmitter or receiver utilizing any portion of the electromagnetic spectrum,
or any device utilizing the Doppler effect.” Id. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, these exemplary sensors may be used to detect the presence of an
object. Ans. 23. The Examiner determines, and we agree, “proximity sensor”
does not in and of itself convey any specific hardware or technique, other
than detecting the presence of an object, and Weaver’s teachings fall within
the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “proximity sensor,” as claimed.
Id.
Tilmann teaches “[t]he presence of the user . . . can thereby be
detected using one or more sensors. The range of the sensor for detecting a
user and respectively the distance from the display a user must be before
being detected by the movement sensor, is preferably maximum 4 meters.”
Tilmann ¶ 11. Tilmann also teaches “[t]he sensor, which identifies the
Appeal 2019-006773
Application 13/745,580

5

presence of a user in front of the display, preferably a movement sensor, can
transmit a corresponding signal.” Id. ¶ 12. Thus, Tilmann teaches detecting
the presence of a user, which may be done with a movement sensor or
another type of sensor. Tilmann, therefore, at least suggests using a
proximity sensor to detect the presence of a user.
Appellant also argues Weaver does not teach or suggest a proximity
sensor “of the mobile device,” because Weaver teaches a proximity sensor in
a separate, external device—specifically, a remote control separate from a
set top box. Appeal Br. 17‒19.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Weaver teaches a device that may be in the form of a
set top box and remote control, as discussed in paragraph 46, or in the form
of a mobile device, such as a cellular phone. Ans. 25 (citing Weaver ¶ 65).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that in embodiments where the device is
a cellular phone, the disclosed sensors are present inside that device and are,
therefore, sensors “of the mobile device,” as claimed. Id. Appellant has not
persuasively identified error in this finding. See Reply Br. 6.
For these reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1. We
also sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 7, 43, and 53,
for which Appellant relies on the same arguments. Appeal Br. 19. We also
sustain the rejections of dependent claims 3‒6, 9‒12, 45‒48, 50, 55‒58, and
60, for which Appellant provides no separate argument. Id.

Appeal 2019-006773
Application 13/745,580

6

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 6, 7,
10, 12, 43,
47, 48, 50,
53, 57, 58,
60
103(a) Weaver, Tilmann,
Stockhammer
1, 4, 6, 7,
10, 12, 43,
47, 48, 50,
53, 57, 58,
60

3, 9, 46, 56 103(a) Weaver, Tilmann,
Stockhammer,
Bhagavathy
3, 9, 46, 56
5, 11 103(a) Weaver, Tilmann,
Stockhammer,
Raveendran
5, 11
45, 55 103(a) Weaver, Tilmann,
Stockhammer,
Dotson
45, 55
Overall
Outcome
1, 3‒7, 9‒
12, 43, 45‒
48, 50, 53,
55‒58, 60

FINALITY AND RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED