Ex Parte Hao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 18, 2016

13220759 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/220,759 08/30/2011
25537 7590 10/20/2016
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jack Jianxiu Hao
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.
20110153 2373
EXAMINER
BAIG, SAHARA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/20/2016 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 JACK JIANXIU HAO, DIEGO S. ROZENSZTEJN,
GUILLERMO ORTIZ, and XUEFENG YA0 1
Appeal2015-007636
Application 13/220,759
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 13-32, which are all of the pending claims in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Verizon Communications
Inc. and its subsidiary companies.
Appeal2015-007636
Application 13/220,759
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' disclosure relates to delivery channel selection and
application layer handover of programs for a mobile service. The claimed
embodiments are generally directed to buffering a streaming video program
in order to better manage handovers within a mobile network. A video
program data buffer is created when the user begins to view a streaming
video program. During network handover, the buffered video is played so
little or no interruption is encountered as a result of the handover.
Specification i-fi-128-29, Figs. 9A, 9B. Claim 13, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
13. A method comprising:
establishing, by a device, a wireless connection with a
network;
receiving, by the device, a stream of a video program via
the network;
buffering, by the device, upon initially receiving the
stream; a portion of the video program based on a handover time;
determining, by the device and subsequent to the
buffering, whether a handover is to be performed; and
playing, by the device, a buffered portion of the video
program during an execution of the handover based on
determining that the handover is to be performed.
App. Br. (Claims Appendix) 20.
REJECTIONS
Claims 13, 14, 17, 18, 21-23, 25, 26, 28, and 31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2008/0215021 Al,
published Aug. 26, 2010) ("Li").
2
Appeal2015-007636
Application 13/220,759
Claims 15, 16, 20, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Li and Povey et al. (US 2007 /0281712 A 1, published
Dec. 6, 2007) ("Povey").
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Li and Alastruey Gracia et al. (US 2009/0249418 Al, published Oct. 1,
2009) ("Alastruey Gracia").
Claims 27 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Li and Meredith et al. (US 2013/0023281 Al, published Jan.
24, 2013) ("Meredith").
Claims 29 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Li and Lundberg et al. (US 2007/0291744 Al, published Dec.
20, 2007) ("Lundberg").
ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
Did the Examiner err in finding Li discloses "buffering, by the device,
upon initially receiving the stream, a portion of the video program based on
a handover time," as recited in independent claim 13?
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 13, the Examiner finds Li discloses "buffering, by
the device, upon initially receiving the stream, a portion of the video
program based on a handover time" at paragraphs 23, 31, and at Figure 5.
Ans. 2. More specifically, the Examiner finds Li discloses creating a buffer
of length d2 (as shown in Figure 5) prior to starting content playback.
Ans. 8. The Examiner further finds Li teaches the length of the buffer d2
must be greater than the delay difference di (as shown in Figure 5), and the
3
Appeal2015-007636
Application 13/220,759
buffering is based on the delay difference di. Id. According to the
Examiner, basing the buffering on the delay difference di is the same as
being based on the "handover time" as recited in claim 13. Ans. 8-9.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Li's use of the delay difference di to
determine the length of the buff er d2 is not buffering "based on a handover
time." App. Br. 10-12. More specifically, Appellants contend the buffer
length d2 disclosed in Li is determined based on the playback rate of the
selected content and a delay difference which is calculated from time stamps
of the pertinent video stream. App. Br. 11. Appellants argue claim 13
differs from Li because basing a buffer on a delay difference between
content streams of different networks is different from basing a buff er on a
handover time. App. Br. 12.
We agree with Appellants. Anticipation requires every limitation of a
claim to identically appear in a single prior art reference. In re Bond, 910
F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Here, the Examiner finds Li discloses the
buffer length d2 is made greater than the delay difference di in order to
achieve non-interruptive playback on handover. Ans. 8; see also Li i-f 34.
In describing the disclosed invention. Appellants' Specification discloses
the following:
[A] mobile application of the user device (e.g., user device 250)
buffers the program for a time period equivalent to or
substantially equivalent to the time period needed to perform the
handover. In this way, the program session may continue with
no or little interruption in mobile service when viewing the
program.
Spec. i-f 69 (emphasis added). In other words, the recited "handover time" is
the amount of time needed to perform the handover.
4
Appeal2015-007636
Application 13/220,759
However, the Examiner fails to bear his initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case ofunpatentability, In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed.
Cir. 1992), because he does not adequately explain how Li's delay
difference di or buffer length d2 is identical to, or based on, a "handover
time" within the meaning of claim 13. That is, absent articulation of an
appropriate interpretation of the disputed handover time and basis therefor
such that the interpretation encompasses Li's delay difference or buffer
length, we do not agree with the Examiner's finding.
Li describes the delay difference as the difference in the amount of
delay between the stream on a WIFI network and the stream in a DVB-H
network. Li i-fi-123, 29-30. Li does not describe the delay difference as
being the amount of time it takes for a mobile device to switch between
networks (i.e., the handover time). Although Li's buffer d2 is employed in
the context of a handover, the Examiner has not demonstrated, nor is it self-
evident, why the use of the delay difference to determine the appropriate size
of the buffer is the same as buffering based on a handover time.
The Examiner did not make any findings as to the scope and content
of the remaining cited references sufficient to cure the deficiency in Li
discussed supra. Accordingly, we are constrained by the record before us to
find that the Examiner erred in finding Li discloses "buffering ... a portion
of the video program based on a handover time," and we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 13 based on 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Moreover, as we agree
with the argument advanced by Appellants discussed above, we need not
reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
Each of the remaining independent claims 18 and 22 recites a
limitation substantially similar to the limitation discussed above.
5
Appeal2015-007636
Application 13/220,759
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of those claims for the same
reasons.
Claims 14, 17, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 31, are also rejected as being
anticipated by Li, and they each depend from one of the independent claims.
App. Br. (Claims Appendix) 20-25. By virtue of their dependency on their
respective base claims, we do not sustain the rejection of those claims.
Claims 15, 16, 20, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Li and Povey. Ans. 3. Claim 19 stands rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Li and Alastruey Gracia. Ans. 5.
Claims 27 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Li and Meredith. Ans. 6. Claims 29 and 32 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Li and Lundberg. Ans. 6. The
Examiner's added reliance on these various secondary references does not
remedy the deficiencies in Li discussed above. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejections of those claims made under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 13-32 is reversed.
REVERSED
6