Ex Parte ALWARD et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

13247185 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/247, 185 09/28/2011
25537 7590 09/27/2018
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David M. ALWARD
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
20110361 3426
EXAMINER
TRINH, TUNG THANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID M. ALWARD and LALIT R. KOTECHA
Appeal2018-003170
Application 13/24 7,185
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC B. CHEN, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 3, 7-9, 13, 16-20, and 22-27. Claims 2, 4---6, 10-12, 14, 15, and
21 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.
Appeal2018-003170
Application 13/247,185
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to preemptive delivery of content to
mobile devices. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method implemented by at least one device, the
method comprising:
analyzing, by the device and at a gateway in a wireless
network, network traffic of a plurality of users, the analyzing
including a passive analysis of the network traffic that passes
through the gateway, the passive analysis including passively
analyzing packets passing through the gateway to determine
amounts of requests for content items;
determining, by the device and based on the passive
analysis, whether a particular content item is a popular content
item, as determined based on the amount of requests for the
particular content item relative to a threshold, the amount of
requests being determined from the passive analysis of the
network traffic for the plurality of users; and
transmitting, by the device, a signal, in response to the
determination, to schedule preemptive multicast delivery of the
particular content item to a plurality of mobile devices,
where the multicast delivery is performed over one or
more radio interfaces in which multiple mobile devices receive
the particular content item over a shared radio channel.
Claims 1, 3, 7-9, 13, 16-20, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Lewis (US 2010/0161756 Al; June 24, 2010),
Borsos (US 2010/0226278 Al; Sept. 9, 2010), and Roman (US
2005/0054354 Al; Mar. 10, 2005). (Final Act. 3-13.)
Claims 24--27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Lewis, Borsos, Roman, and Peterka (US 2003/0140257 Al; July 24,
2003). (Final Act. 13-14.)
2
Appeal2018-003170
Application 13/247,185
ANALYSIS
§ 103 Rejection-Lewis, Borsos, and Roman
Independent claim 1 includes the limitation "analyzing ... at a
gateway in a wireless network, network traffic of a plurality of users, the
analyzing including a passive analysis of the network traffic that passes
through the gateway."
The Examiner found that system 100 of Lewis, including computing
device 102 ( e.g. cellular device) and service provider 116, which maintains
pre-fetching criteria 118 for pre-storing a media object prior to any requests
for access, and core network 824 of Lewis, having gateway support nodes,
collectively correspond to the limitation "analyzing ... at a gateway in a
wireless network, network traffic of a plurality of users." (Ans. 2-3; see
also Final Act. 4.) The Examiner further found that the passive traffic
monitoring of Borsos, for networks to determine popular applications,
corresponds to the limitation "a passive analysis of the network traffic."
(Final Act. 4.) We agree with the Examiner's findings.
Lewis relates to "pre-fetching media content that involves
downloading segments of selected media objects to a client's device." (i14.)
Figure 1 of Lewis illustrates system 100, which includes computing device
102, service provider 116, and content server 132 that communicates over
network 114. (i132.) Lewis explains that pre-fetching criteria can be based
upon pre-fetch wish list 120, popular access list 124, recommended pre-fetch
list 128, client profile 122, carrier request list 126, or advertised media
content 130. (i140.) In particular, Lewis explains that "recommended pre-
fetch list 128 may be compiled on behalf of a user, such as by a carrier or a
service provider 116." (i145.) Moreover, Figure 6 of Lewis illustrates a
3
Appeal2018-003170
Application 13/247,185
General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) network architecture, including
users 815, radio access network 820, core network 824 having gateway
Mobile Switching Center (MSC) 827, and interconnect network 837. (i164.)
Because Lewis explains that pre-fetching media, for downloading to a
client's device, is based upon pre-fetching criteria collected by service
provider 116, and that an exemplary GPRS network architecture includes a
core network with a gateway MSC, we agree with the Examiner that Lewis
teaches the limitation "analyzing ... at a gateway in a wireless network,
network traffic of a plurality of users."
Borsos relates to "traffic monitoring within a network." (i1 1.) Borsos
explains that "[p ]assive measurement means that network traffic is captured
at certain interfaces within the network" (i14) and "by means of passive
measurements, not only end-user perceived performance can be observed,
but also traffic composition and volume" (i1 7). Borsos further explains that
the monitoring component can be implemented in a Gateway General Packet
Radio Service (GPRS) Support Node (GGSN). (i137.) Because Borsos
explains network traffic can be captured by passive monitoring, we agree
with the Examiner that Borsos teaches the limitation "a passive analysis of
the network traffic."
Appellants argue that "Lewis simply lists a number of factors that
may be used to determine which media items are to be pre-fetched (e.g., a
pre-fetch wish list 120, a popular access list 124, a recommended pre-fetch
list 128, a client profile 122, a carrier request list 126, or advertised media
content 130)." (App. Br. 11 ). According to Appellants, "Lewis completely
fails to describe or suggest that these lists are in any way related to a passive
analysis of network traffic." (Id.) The Examiner, however, cited to Borsos,
4
Appeal2018-003170
Application 13/247,185
rather than Lewis, for teaching the limitation "a passive analysis of the
network traffic." (Final Act. 4.)
Appellants also argue that "'[p]assive traffic monitoring' is described
by Borsos as a type of traffic monitoring" and "[ t ]hus, Borsos is not related
to the transmitting, prefetching, or determination of popular content items."
(App. Br. 12.) The Examiner, however, cited to Lewis, rather than Borsos,
for teaching the limitation "analyzing ... at a gateway in a wireless network,
network traffic of a plurality of users." (Final Act. 4.)
Appellants further argue neither Borsos nor Roman teach passively
analyzing packets "to determine amounts of requests for content items."
(App. Br. 12 ("that Borsos, as with Lewis, fails to disclose passively
analyzing packets passing through a gateway device in a wireless network to
determine amounts of requests for content items, as recited in claim 1"
( emphasis omitted)), 13 ("determining whether a particular application ... is
being used by a lot of users and consuming a lot of network bandwidth, is
vastly different than determining amounts of requests (i.e., counting) for
certain content items"), 13-14 ("Roman ... as with Lewis and Borsos, does
not disclose or suggest passively analyzing packets passing through a
gateway device in a wireless network to determine amounts of requests for
content items, as recited in claim 1")). To the extent Appellants are arguing
the references individually, the argument is not persuasive because the
rejection is based on the combination of references. One cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is
based on a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981). To the extent Appellants are arguing that none of the
references teach determining amounts of request for content items, that
5
Appeal2018-003170
Application 13/247,185
argument is not persuasive because we agree with the Examiner that the
limitation is taught by the combination of Lewis and Roman. (Final Act. 4--
5; Ans. 3--4.)
Appellants also argue that "[a]lthough Lewis includes a gateway
device (i.e., a SGSN/GGSN), the gateway devices in Lewis are not described
as being involved in the pre fetching of content." (Reply Br. 4.) Contrary to
Appellants' arguments, however, Lewis explains that pre-fetch list 128 can
be compiled by service provider 116. One example is shown in Lewis
Figure 6, which illustrates the GPRS network architecture, including core
network 824 having gateway MSC 827.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Lewis,
Borsos, and Roman would have rendered obvious independent claim 1,
which includes the limitation "analyzing ... at a gateway in a wireless
network, network traffic of a plurality of users, the analyzing including a
passive analysis of the network traffic that passes through the gateway."
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 3, 7, and 8 depend from claim 1, and Appellants
have not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to
these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 3, 7, and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claim 1.
Independent claims 9, 13, and 19 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
We sustain the rejection of claims 9, 13, and 19, as well as dependent claims
6
Appeal2018-003170
Application 13/247,185
16-18, 20, 22, and 23, for the same reasons discussed with respect to
claim 1.
§ 103 Rejection-Lewis, Borsos, Roman, and Peterka
Dependent claim 24 includes the limitation "wherein the content item
is associated with digital rights management information that prevents the
content item from being viewed until a future date relative to a date of the
multicast delivery."
The Examiner found that the Internet Protocol Rights Management
(IPRM) of Peterka corresponds to the limitation "digital rights management
information that prevents the content item from being viewed." (Final
Act. 13; see also Ans. 5.) The Examiner further found that the acceptance
key of Lewis, which is sent from the device to the content server,
corresponds to the limitation "the content item is associated with ... a future
date relative to a date of the multicast delivery." (Final Act. 14; see also
Ans. 4--5.) We agree with the Examiner's findings.
Peterka relates to transmitting content from a content provider,
including "encrypting the content with a pre-encryptor application before the
content is transmitted to the caching server." (Abstract.) Peterka explains
that "[t]he pre-encryption and key management and distribution methods and
systems embodied in an Internet Protocol Rights Management (IPRM)
system" which "provides digital rights management functions such as
authentication, privacy, security, integrity, and access control to any
multimedia downloading or streaming network based on IP protocols."
(i124.) Thus, as the Examiner finds, Peterka teaches the limitation "digital
7
Appeal2018-003170
Application 13/247,185
rights management information that prevents the content item from being
viewed."
Lewis explains that "[p ]rior to any requests for access to a particular
media object, a content server can provide a segment of the media object to a
user for storage on the user's local machine." (i1 16.) Lewis further explains
that "an acceptance key may be sent ... from the device [102] to the content
server 132 or service provider" which is an "indication that the user has
implemented a first segment from storage, where the first segment was
distributed as a result of the disclosed pre-fetching techniques." (i155.)
Lewis further explains that "[t]he acceptance key may be used, for example,
by a service provider to determine when a user has accessed a segment
provided by them for billing purposes." (Id.) Because Lewis explains that
the media object is stored on device 102 before a request is made and the
acceptance key is later sent, Lewis teaches the limitation "the content item is
associated with ... a future date relative to a date of the multicast delivery."
Appellants argue that "the general disclosure of Peterka relating to
digital rights management functions for downloaded multimedia does not
suggest, as recited in claim 24, preventing a content item from being viewed
until a future date relative to a date of the multicast delivery." (App. Br. 16-
17 ( emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 4.) The Examiner, however, cited
to Lewis, rather than Peterka for teaching the limitation "the content item is
associated with ... a future date relative to a date of the multicast delivery."
(Final Act. 14.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Lewis,
Borsos, Roman, and Peterka would have rendered obvious dependent
claim 24, which includes the limitation "wherein the content item is
8
Appeal2018-003170
Application 13/247,185
associated with digital rights management information that prevents the
content item from being viewed until a future date relative to a date of the
multicast delivery."
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
Dependent claims 25-27 recite limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to dependent claim 24, and Appellants have not presented any
additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We sustain
the rejection of claims 25-27, for the same reasons discussed with respect to
claim 24.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 7-9, 13, 16-
20, and 22-27.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9