Ex Parte Gilson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2017

13291355 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2017)

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.
13/291,355 11/08/2011 Ross Gilson 007412.01584 5393
71867 7590 09/29/2017
BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD
ATTORNEYS FOR CLIENT NUMBER 007412
1100 13th STREET, N.W.
SUITE 1200
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-4051
EXAMINER
BELANI, KISHIN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2017 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):
PTO-71867 @bannerwitcoff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROSS GILSON
Appeal 2017-002715
Application 13/291,355
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant is appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1—8 and 18—29
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 5. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We reverse.
Appeal 2017-002715
Application 13/291,355
Introduction
The invention is directed generally to distributing various content to
one of more devices using one or multiple feeds. Specification, paragraph 5.
Illustrative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)'.
1. A method comprising:
downloading, by a computing device, data in response to a request;
determining, by the computing device, that the downloading of at least
a portion of the data completed before an anticipated point in time', and
selecting, by the computing device, based at least in part on the
determining, differential data for downloading.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—3, 7, 8, 18, 21—27 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§102 (e) as being anticipated by Asarikuniyil (US Patent Application
Publication 2012/0066338 Al; published March 15, 2012). Answer 2—8.
Claims 4—6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Asarikuniyil and Hunt (US Patent Application Publication
2012/0141089 Al; published June 7, 2012). Answer 8-11.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Asarikuniyil and Shiragaki (US Patent Application
Publication 2010/0023974 Al; published January 28, 2010). Answer 11—12.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Asarikuniyil and Vasudevan (US Patent Application
Publication (2009/0150943 Al; published June 11, 2009). Answer 12.
3
Appeal 2017-002715
Application 13/291,355
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Asarikuniyil and Willman (US Patent Application
Publication 2002/0161848 Al; published October 31, 2002). Answer 13.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 8, 2016), the Reply Brief (filed
December 6, 2016), the Final Rejection (mailed August 21, 2015) and the
Answer (mailed October 6, 2016) for the respective details.
Anticipation Rejection
Appellant contends:
Asarikuniyil describes a system that provides a “variable-quality
content stream recording,” which “may include low-quality
recordings 502,...intermediate-quality recording 504,... and a
high quality recording 506.” Asarikuniyil at Fig. 5 and 1 [0039].
Asarikuniyil’s system thus provides a single stream that can at
any given time be composed of one of three types of content
qualities: low, intermediate, or high. Id.
Appeal Brief 11.
The Examiner finds:
As shown in Fig. 5 of Asarikuniyil, if at time interval t3-t4,
available bandwidth exceeds 25 MB/sec, in less than the
anticipated time interval of 10 seconds [e.g. in 8 seconds], the
required 250 MB of content will be downloaded in the content
buffer for presentation at the medium quality rate of 25 MB/sec
for 10 seconds. The remaining 2 seconds of the anticipated
medium quality download time along with the next 10 seconds
t4-t5 time may then be used to download additional data [total of
400 MB] for presenting buffered content in high quality for 10
seconds. Thus, Asarikuniyil reference does teach/suggest the
claimed [determining, by the computing device, that the
downloading of at least a portion of the data completed before
an anticipated point in time].
4
Appeal 2017-002715
Application 13/291,355
Answer 14.
Asarikuniyil’s Figure 5 discloses a timing diagram illustrating
variable-quality content stream recording (Asarikuniyil paragraph 7) and is
reproduced below:
Figure 5 discloses the content stream “recording 500 may include
low-quality recordings 502 (i.e., low-quality recording 502-1 and recording
502-2), intermediate-quality recording 504 (i.e., intermediate-quality
recording 504-1 and recording 504-2), and a high-quality recording 506 (i.e.,
high quality recording 506-1 and recording 506-2).” Asarikuniyil, paragraph
39.
Appellant further contends:
Asarikuniyil’s 10-second threshold is not an amount of time it
takes (or is anticipated to take) to download content, but instead
is the required amount of buffered content at a particular quality
that is required to be buffered before presenting that content at
that particular quality. Thus, if the amount of content buffered at
5
Appeal 2017-002715
Application 13/291,355
a particular quality is less than a 10-second chunk of content at
that particular quality (e.g., a 2-second chunk of intermediate-
quality content), then lower quality content is presented (i.e., the
low-quality content instead of the intermediate-quality content).
Asarikuniyil’s 10-second threshold of buffered content therefore
has nothing to do with “determining, by the computing device,
that the downloading of at least a portion of the data completed
before an anticipated point in time,” as asserted by the Office.
Appeal Brief 14.
We find Appellant’s arguments persuasive because Asarikuniyil
discloses in paragraphs 40-51 a detailed description of the content stream
recording illustrated in Figure 5 that supports Appellant’s position that the
time of Asarikuniyil refers to a content amount rather than the required
download time.1 Asarikuniyil discloses in paragraph 43 the following
example:
During recording 504-1, the available bandwidth at
content player device 102 intermittently falls below B2
[bandwidth threshold associated with a stream at a given quality],
causing the amount of buffered intermediate-quality content to
dwindle to an amount less than C2 [threshold for the amount of
buffered content (measured in seconds)] (e.g., 2 seconds of
content). Accordingly, at t2, content player device 102 records
1 “Because the hallmark of anticipation is prior invention, the prior art
reference — in order to anticipate under 35U.S.C. § 102 — must not only
disclose all elements of the claim within the four comers of the document,
but must also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim.” Net
Moneyln, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(emphasis added; citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also id.
at 1371 (“Thus, it is not enough that the prior art reference discloses part of
the claimed invention, which an ordinary artisan might supplement to make
the whole, or that it includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan
might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.”).
6
Appeal 2017-002715
Application 13/291,355
low-quality stream 502-2 and sends a corresponding stream to
content presentation device 104.
Consequently, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
independent claims 1,18, and 22 commensurate in scope, as well as,
dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 21, 23—27, and 29 for the same reasons. See
Appeal Brief 14—15.
Obviousness Rejections
We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent
claims 4—6, 19, 20 and 28 for the same reasons as the independent
claims upon which they depend. See Appeal Brief 15—16.
DECISION
The Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1—3, 7, 8, 18, 21—27,
and 29 is reversed.
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 4—6, 19, 20, and 28
are reversed.
REVERSED
7