Comcast Cable Communications, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 13, 202014328334 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2020) 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. 14/328,334 07/10/2014 Daniel Freiman 26141.0112U2 9219 16000 7590 05/13/2020 Comcast c/o Ballard Spahr LLP 999 Peachtree Street, Suite 1000 Atlanta, GA 30309 EXAMINER EL-BKAILY, AHMAD M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2176 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/13/2020 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): USpatentmail@ballardspahr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DANIEL FREIMAN, MAURICE GASTON, and FILIPE ARAUJO ____________________ Appeal 2019-002719 Application 14/328,334 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOYCE CRAIG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2019-002719 Application 14/328,334 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1–13 and 16–22. Claims 14 and 15 have been canceled (see Appeal Br. 14). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. DISCLOSED AND CLAIMED INVENTION According to Appellant: Devices with different processing power and network bandwidth often request the same content. The processing power and network bandwidth dedicated to particular content can fluctuate over time for a given device. Thus, there is a need for more sophisticated methods and systems for providing customized content based on processing power, network bandwidth, and other factors. Spec. ¶ 2. The disclosed invention, entitled “Adaptive Content Delivery” (Title), relates to “methods and systems for managing and providing content” (Spec. ¶ 3), and more particularly to a method for controlling content delivery based on the length of time it takes to process and deliver content, or portions of content (see Spec. ¶¶ 3–5; claims 1, 8), or power usage information (see Spec. ¶¶ 6–8; claim 13). Independent claims 1, 8, and 13 are all method claims. Claims 1 and 8 each recite commensurate limitations regarding determining a timing attribute from a document object model which is then used to determine a delivery information attribute (see claims 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. “The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (Appeal Br. 1). Appeal 2019-002719 Application 14/328,334 3 1, 8). Claim 13 recites similar subject matter, and determines power information, instead of timing attribute/information, from the document object model (see claim 13). Claim 1, reproduced below with bracketed lettering and emphases added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method, comprising: receiving at least a portion of a content page via an application that renders at least the portion of the content page, wherein the application generates a document object model representing the content page and stores timing information associated with the content page in the document object model; [A] determining, from the document object model, a timing attribute associated with the at least a portion of the content page; [B] determining a delivery information attribute based on the timing attribute, wherein the delivery information attribute comprises at least one of a time duration to process the at least a portion of the content page or a time duration to receive the at least a portion of the content page; and receiving an update to the content page based on comparing comparing the delivery information attribute to a threshold. Appeal Br. 12, Claims Appendix (bracketed lettering and emphases added). REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: (1) Claims 1–6, 8–10, 12, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chou et al. (US 2006/0143678 A1; published June 29, 2006) (hereinafter, “Chou”) and Prager et al. (US 2011/0145246 A1; published June 16, 2011) (hereinafter, “Prager”). Final Act. 2–9. (2) Claims 7, 13, 16–18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Appeal 2019-002719 Application 14/328,334 4 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chou, Prager, and Koul et al. (US 2009/0210654 A1; published Aug. 20, 2009) (hereinafter, “Koul”). Final Act. 9–13. (3) Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chou, Prager, and Stokking et al. (US 2015/0052571 A1; published Feb. 19, 2015) (hereinafter, “Stokking”). Final Act. 13–14. (4) Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chou, Prager, Koul, and Kiley et al. (US 2008/0189360 A1; published Aug. 7, 2008) (hereinafter, “Kiley”). Final Act. 14–15. ISSUE Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 5– 11) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2–9),2 the following principal issue is presented on appeal: Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1–13 and 16–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the base combination of Chou and Prager? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection (Final Act. 2–15) in light of Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 5–11; Reply Br. 2–9) that the 2 Appellant argues claims 1–6, 8–10, 12, 21, and 22 on the same basis as claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 5–9; Reply Br. 3–8). As to remaining claims 7, 11, 13, and 16–20, Appellant relies on the arguments presented as to claim 1, adding that the additionally applied references fail to cure the deficiencies of the base combination of Chou and Prager (see Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 8–9). Based on Appellant’s arguments, we select claim 1 as representative of claims 1–6, 8–10, 12, 21, and 22, and we decide the outcome of the rejections of the remaining claims on the same basis as provided for claim 1. Appeal 2019-002719 Application 14/328,334 5 Examiner has erred, as well as the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 3–5). Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of error. With regard to representative claim 1, we agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Final Rejection (Final Act. 2–4) and Answer (Ans. 3–5). We provide the following explanation for emphasis only. Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the base combination of Chou and Prager, because Prager (see ¶¶ 13, 27) teaches or suggests limitation A and Chou (see ¶¶ 27, 115) teaches or suggests limitation B, recited in claim 1. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s determination that the combination of Chou and Prager teaches or suggests the subject matter of claim 1, including limitations A and B. With regard to the motivation to combine Chou and Prager, we agree with the Examiner’s rationale for making the combination set forth at page 4 of the Final Rejection: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Chou and Prager before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of dynamic streaming quality as taught by Chou with the timing attribute DOM storage system as taught by Prager so when a document with many content portions is received, timing information can be accessed for each content portion without needing to request any additional documents. Final Act. 4 (emphasis omitted); and at page 5 of the Answer (explaining the motivation for staggering content delivery over time): In this case, the transfer of a file over a network is split into smaller portions and, using timing attributes, stagger the delivery of content portions in order so as not to overwhelm the network connection of the client device while delivering said content Appeal 2019-002719 Application 14/328,334 6 Ans. 5. We also agree with the Examiner that: obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Ans. 5. Further, we agree with the Examiner that (i) Prager is in the same field of endeavor as the subject matter of claim 1 (see Final Act. 3); and (ii) “Chou is ‘reasonably pertinent’ to the problem described by the Appellant as it relates to the display of content to a user over the internet, that content being video” (Ans. 3). In particular, we agree with the Examiner that “the problem itself (i.e., transfer of files over the internet) and ‘how the problem is solved’ (i.e., a timing attribute to stagger transfer of content objects) is the same in both inventions and satisfies the ‘reasonably pertinent’ standard based on how the problem[s] are solved. In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 98 USPQ2d 1991 (Fed. Cir. 2011)” (Ans. 4). Finally, we agree with the Examiner’s determination (see Ans. 5) that both Chou and Appellant’s disclosed inventions pertain to streaming audio/video. In view of the foregoing, Appellant has not overcome the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness with respect to independent claim 1. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of (i) independent claim 1, as well as claims 2–6, 8–10, 12, 21, and 22 grouped therewith; and (ii) the Examiner’s rejections of claims 7, 11, 13, and 16–20 argued for similar reasons. Appeal 2019-002719 Application 14/328,334 7 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 1–6, 8–10, 12, 21, 22 103 Chou, Prager 1–6, 8–10, 12, 21, 22 7, 13, 16– 18, 20 103 Chou, Prager, Koul 7, 13, 16–18, 20 11 103 Chou, Prager, Stokking 11 19 103 Chou, Prager, Koul, Kiley 19 Overall Outcome 1–13, 16–22 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation