Ex Parte Hudson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 14, 201411982081 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1 ___________ 2 3 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 4 ___________ 5 6 Ex parte MICHAEL D. HUDSON, 7 BRIAN L. WINDHEIM, 8 DARIN STEWART, 9 SUDHIR MENON, 10 MARK W. GOSCHIE, 11 and GLEN CURTIS SHIPLEY 12 ___________ 13 14 Appeal 2011-010467 15 Application 11/982,081 16 Technology Center 2400 17 ___________ 18 19 20 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and 21 ANTON W. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges. 22 23 FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 24 25 26 DECISION ON APPEAL27 28 29 Appeal 2011-010467 Application 11/982,081 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 1 Michael D. Hudson, Brian L. Windheim, Darin Stewart, Sudhir 2 Menon, Mark W. Goschie, and Glen Curtis Shipley (Appellants) seek review 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 20 and 21, the only 4 claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the 5 appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 6 The Appellants invented a streaming media content delivery system 7 supporting multiple, concurrent, peer-based sources of multimedia content 8 accessible subject to central mediation (Spec., para. 0005). 9 An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 10 exemplary claim 20, which is reproduced below [some paragraphing added]. 11 20. A method 12 of operating a distributed streaming media storage system 13 to support delivery of streaming media files 14 to requesting computer systems, 15 said method comprising the steps of: 16 a) recording the segmenting 17 of streaming media content files 18 into pluralities of named content segments 19 including authentication values for said named content 20 segments; 21 b) monitoring the distribution, 22 for purposes of persistent storage, 23 of said pluralities of content segments 24 to a plurality of distributed network computer systems 25 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed January 18, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 3, 2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed April 6, 2011). Appeal 2011-010467 Application 11/982,081 3 interconnected by a wide area communications 1 network 2 permitting individual transport of named 3 content segments; 4 c) responding to a request 5 for a predetermined streaming media content file 6 by providing a manifest 7 containing an identification of a subset of 8 said plurality of distributed network 9 computer systems 10 from which to obtain 11 through said wide area 12 communications network 13 a set of named content segments 14 comprehensive of said predetermined 15 streaming media content file, 16 said manifest further containing said authentication 17 values 18 for said set of named content segments. 19 20 The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 21 Ehram US 2002/0040479 A1 Apr. 4, 2002 22 Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as 23 anticipated by Ehrman. 24 25 ISSUE 26 The issue of anticipation turns primarily on whether Ehrman describes 27 a manifest containing both identification of a subset of said plurality of 28 distributed network computer systems and authentication values for the set 29 of named content segments. 30 31 Appeal 2011-010467 Application 11/982,081 4 FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 1 The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 2 supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 3 Facts Related to the Prior Art - Ehrman 4 01. Ehrman is directed to streaming content via a network. Ehrman, 5 para. 0001. 6 02. Since the individual streams are of a narrow bandwidth, they may 7 be supplied by peer-type computers connected to network 16, 8 whose upload connection bandwidths are narrow, rather than by 9 servers having wide bandwidth upload connections. Ehrman, 10 para. 0020. 11 03. Receiving peer recombines the separate streams into a single, 12 stream of content, and displays the content stream generally as it 13 arrives, and also communicates with streaming content manager to 14 initiate and control the communication between supplying and 15 receiving peers. Ehrman, paras. 0021-0022. 16 04. Upon receiving a request from receiving peer to download to it a 17 particular content stream, such as a movie, streaming content 18 manager authorizes the suppliers of a predefined number of 19 supplying peers to download their stream to the requesting 20 receiving peer. Streaming content manager also provides 21 recombiner of receiving peer with the list of supplying peers who 22 have been authorized. In one embodiment, the list includes more 23 than one supplying peer for each stream to ensure a backup if one 24 of the supplying peers is either not available or supplies its stream 25 too slowly. Ehrman, para. 0023. 26 Appeal 2011-010467 Application 11/982,081 5 05. Ehrman divides the content stream, typically in an off-line 1 process, into the separate streams needed for download and 2 provides them to the various supplying peers. Ehrman, para. 3 0025. 4 06. Content divider comprises a sectioner and a splitter. Sectioner 5 divides a content stream, typically though not necessarily in 6 compressed format, received from a content database, into a 7 plurality of sections, each a continuous piece of content. Splitter 8 splits each section into N "chunks," prepares each chunk for 9 transmission, and provides the chunks of a section to separate 10 streams, labeled A-N, where each stream comprises one chunk 11 from each section. Splitter may perform an encryption operation, 12 may add redundancy codes to the stream, or may perform any 13 other desired operation on a section before dividing it into chunks. 14 Ehrman, paras. 0026-0028. 15 07. Supplier comprises a stream storage unit, a network packager and 16 a supplier manager. Stream storage unit stores the streams 17 allocated to it, where, typically, each stream belongs to a different 18 content stream, such as a different movie. Supplier manager 19 controls the operation of supplier and may receive a stream from 20 content divider for storing in stream storage and it may receive 21 instructions and/or authorizations regarding downloads to 22 receiving peer. Upon receipt of a connection request from an 23 authorized receiving peer, it may enable a connection to that 24 receiving peer thus allowing the desired stream to be sent to the 25 receiving peer. Supplier manager also instructs network packager 26 Appeal 2011-010467 Application 11/982,081 6 to transmit the authorized stream to the authorized receiving peer 1 by transmitting the currently requested chunks for the authorized 2 stream, received from stream storage unit, along the open 3 connection to the authorized receiving peer. Network packager 4 then generally repeats this process for the remaining chunks of the 5 stream, until supplier manager indicates to network packager to 6 stop transmission. Ehrman, paras. 0030-0032. 7 08. Recombiner comprises a section receiver, a recombination unit, 8 and a recombiner manager. Section receiver receives chunks as 9 they arrive from the multiple supplying peers, and checks that all 10 of the chunks of a section have been received, and, if so, passes 11 the set of chunks to recombination unit. The latter, after stripping 12 the chunks of any transmission packaging, performs the inverse of 13 the operation performed by splitter. The section is now ready to 14 be played by content display unit. If section receiver does not 15 receive one of the chunks, it so notifies recombination unit. If 16 there is sufficient redundancy information in the section as well as 17 in any additional redundancy codes, recombination unit may be 18 able to reproduce the section despite the missing chunk. 19 However, section receiver notifies recombiner manager that a 20 chunk did not arrive (which can occur if supplying peer 10 is shut 21 down or otherwise disconnected from network) or that it arrived 22 too slowly to be included in the chunks sent for inverse 23 transformation. Recombiner manager may then attempt to replace 24 the supplying peer of the no longer existent or slowly arriving 25 stream with another supplying peer which has the same stream 26 Appeal 2011-010467 Application 11/982,081 7 stored therein, in the expectation that a second supplying peer will 1 be able to transfer the stream more quickly. To do so, recombiner 2 manager either uses the original list of supplying peers or it 3 contacts streaming content manager for the addressing of 4 additional supplying peers storing the troublesome stream. 5 Recombiner manager communicates with streaming content 6 manager both to initiate the download and for any information 7 needed to continue and finish the download. Ehrman, paras. 8 0033-0037. 9 ANALYSIS 10 We are persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that 11 Ehrman discloses redundancy codes that are combined 12 with each content stream and that are used to identify and 13 correct a data receive failure. (See paragraph 0028). However, 14 the redundancy codes are included with the stream (as 15 acknowledged on page 7, paragraph 2, line 2, of the Examiner's 16 Answer). Thus, any interpretation that Ehrman discloses 17 redundancy codes that are included in a manifest is contrary to 18 the teaching of Ehrman. 19 Reply Br. 4. Examiner found that Ehrman provides the equivalent of the 20 recited manifest in the form of a list. Ans. 8. We agree. FF 04. Examiner 21 makes a finding that the codes in the stream form an inherent part of 22 Ehrman’s list. Id. at 8. This is unsupported by Ehrman. Ehrman describes 23 its list as containing “supplying peers who have been authorized.” As the 24 rejection is made under anticipation, predictability of including additional 25 information is not at issue. It is also insufficient that additional information 26 be implied by the contents, as the claim recites including two separate parts 27 of the manifest contents, viz., identification of a subset of said plurality of 28 Appeal 2011-010467 Application 11/982,081 8 distributed network computer systems (which Ehrman clearly provides) and 1 authentication values for the set of named content segments. The Examiner 2 appears to find that Ehrman’s redundancy codes form such authentication 3 values, but Ehrman’s redundancy codes are part of the data stream, not part 4 of Ehrman’s list. 5 6 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 7 The rejection of claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as 8 anticipated by Ehrman is improper. 9 10 DECISION 11 The rejection of claims 20 and 21 is reversed. 12 REVERSED 13 14 15 16 17 18 hh 19 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation