Ex Parte Mathur et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 27, 201714230825 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 14/230,825 03/31/2014 Vaibhav MATHUR QC132380 3629 12371 7590 09/29/2017 Mnnrv rre.issle.r Olrk & T owe P P /OT TAT POMM EXAMINER 4000 Legato Road, Suite 310 Fairfax, VA 22033 HUQ, OBAIDUL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2473 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): meo.docket@mg-ip.com meo@mg-ip.com ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VAIBHAV MATHUR, MARK AARON LINDNER, and SARITHA SIVAPURAM Appeal 2017-006516 Application 14/230,8251 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MARC S. HOFF, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1—30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appellants’ invention is a method and system for transmitting data to a set of target devices during a real-time communication session. At least one of the set of target devices detects a media reception gap in the real-time communication session, and transmits a rewind request to trigger the transmitting device to generate and provide a time-delayed version of the 1 The real party in interest is QUALCOMM Incorporated. See Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2017-006516 Application 14/230,825 real-time medias stream that includes media lost during the media reception gap. The transmitting device generates a rewind stream based on the rewind request and transmits the rewind stream to the at least one target device. See Abstract. The rewind stream is configured to be played by the receiving device independently from the real-time media stream. See Spec. H 91, 96— 98. Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal: 1. A method of operating a receiving device that is receiving data from a transmitting device during a real-time communication session, comprising: detecting, while the receiving device is monitoring a real-time media stream from the transmitting device, a media reception gap; transmitting, in response to the detection, a rewind request to the transmitting device that is configured to trigger the transmitting device to generate and provide a time-delayed version of the real-time media stream that includes media lost during the media reception gap; and receiving a rewind stream in response to the rewind request, wherein the rewind stream is configured to be played by the receiving device independently from the real-time media stream. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Turnbull US 2005/0021821 A1 Jan 27, 2005 Oran US 2008/0062990 A1 Mar. 13, 2008 Hughes US 2009/0198827 A1 Aug. 6, 2009 Doran US 7,636,327 B1 Dec. 22, 2009 Perlman US 2011/0126255 A1 May 26, 2011 Edwards US 2012/0314573 A1 Dec. 13,2012 2 Appeal 2017-006516 Application 14/230,825 Claims 1, 4, 5, 12, 16, 19—21, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oran and Turnbull. Claims 2, 3, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oran, Turnbull, and Hughes. Claims 6—11, 23, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oran, Turnbull, and Perlman. Claims 13 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oran, Turnbull, and Doran. Claims 14, 15, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oran, Turnbull, and Edwards. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed December 5, 2016), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed March 15, 2017), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed February 8, 2017) for their respective details. ISSUE Does the combination of Oran and Turnbull disclose or suggest a rewind stream, received in response to a rewind request, the rewind stream being configured to be played by the receiving device independently from the real-time media stream? ANALYSIS Claims 1,4, 5,12,16,19-21,29, and 30 Each independent claim (1, 16, 29, and 30) recites “detecting ... a media reception gap,” and “transmitting ... a rewind request to the transmitting device that is configured to trigger the transmitting device to 3 Appeal 2017-006516 Application 14/230,825 generate and provide a time-delayed version of the real-time media stream that includes media lost during the media reception gap,” wherein the rewind stream “is configured to be played by the receiving device independently from the real-time media stream.” The Examiner concedes that Oran does not disclose a rewind stream configured to be played by at least one target device independently from the real-time media stream. Ans. 6. The Examiner finds that Turnbull supplies the missing teaching. Ans. 7—8, citing Turnbull 57. We find that the Examiner erred in characterizing Turnbull. Turnbull discloses that a client 102 records and transmits multimedia data via the internet 103 to a network server 104. See Turnbull Tflf 44, 45. The multimedia is stored at network server 104, and can be retrieved either by the originating client 102, or by a third party client (“receiver”) 105. Id. Thus, in Turnbull it is network server 104 that corresponds to the “receiving device” of Appellants’ claims. Network server 104 is also the device that is disclosed to be the device that recognizes that a packet is missing from the transmitted multimedia data. Turnbull 1 55. In response to a NACK message from network server 104, client 102 retrieves the missing packet from the temporary buffer and places it in the lost packet store 204. Id. After the stop recording signal is received, client 102 transmits the contents of the lost packet store 204 to the server 104. Turnbull | 56. It is therefore clear that Turnbull does not disclose receiving a “rewind stream” (in response to a transmitted rewind request) as claimed, but rather transmitting one or more packets, after the original recording has completed, to make up for those missing during original transmission. 4 Appeal 2017-006516 Application 14/230,825 We further agree with Appellants that Turnbull does not disclose a rewind stream that is configured to be played by the “receiving device” independently from the real-time media stream. First, the “receiving device” in Turnbull corresponds to the claimed limitation is network server 104, rather than receiving client 105. Second, the stream that receiving client 105 may choose to view “as it is being recorded” is the exact same stream being transmitted from client 102 to network server 104. Turnbull | 57. “[T]he server 104 transmits (531) the received data packets to the receiving client at the same time as they are written to the archive.” Id. The live media being transmitted to the receiving client 105 here is not a “rewind stream” received in response to a rewind request, and it is not a “time-delayed version of the real-time media stream that includes media lost during the media reception gap,” both of which are required by the claimed invention. We find that the Examiner’s combination of Oran and Turnbull fails to disclose all the element of the invention recited in claims 1, 4, 5, 12, 16, 19—21, 29, and 30. We do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection. Claims 2,3, 6-11,13-15,17,18,22,23, and 25-28 The Examiner rejects these dependent claims over Oran and Turnbull, further in view of one of Hughes, Perlman, Doran, and Edwards. We agree with Appellants that none of Hughes, Perlman, Doran, or Edwards remedy the deficiencies of the combination of Oran and Turnbull, which we have detailed supra. See App. Br. 11. Asa result, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 6—11, 13—15, 17, 18, 22, 23, and 25—28, for the same reasons expressed with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 12, 16, 19—21, 29, and 30, supra. 5 Appeal 2017-006516 Application 14/230,825 CONCLUSION The combination of Oran and Turnbull does not disclose or suggest a rewind stream, received in response to a rewind request, the rewind stream being configured to be played by the receiving device independently from the real-time media stream. ORDER The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation