Ex Parte ALWARD et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 201813247185 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation