Ex Parte SETHURAMAN

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 31, 2018

13897364 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/897,364 05/18/2013 SRIRAM SETHURAMAN
40317 7590 01/03/2019
GLOBAL IP SERVICES, PLLC
121 MOORE ST
PRINCETON, NJ 08540
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.
l 864.098US 1 9507
EXAMINER
DOAN, DUYEN MY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2452
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2019 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):
pnama@globalipservices.com
docketing@globalipservices.com
pradeep@globalipservices.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte SRIRAM SETHURAMAN 1
Appeal2018-003499
Application 13/897 ,3 64
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MARC S. HOFF, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant's appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1 through 34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a system for ingest bandwidth reduction
while uploading media content acquired at a given bit-rate to a cloud based
media service. Abstract. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is
reproduced below.
1. An automated method for ingest bandwidth
reduction while uploading media content acquired at a
given bit-rate to a cloud based media service, comprising:
1 According to Appellant, Ittiam Systems. is the real party in interest. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-003499
Application 13/897,364
converting the media content to a lower bit-rate
coded representation than the given bit-rate using one of
an electronic device used for initiating an upload and a
dedicated appliance connected to the electronic device,
wherein the lower bit-rate coded representation is
determined based on a bandwidth available for the
upload and time taken to upload the media content; and
uploading the converted media content to the cloud
based media service using one of the electronic device
and the dedicated appliance, wherein uploading of the
converted media content to the cloud based media service
is scheduled based on user experience requirement
parameters of consumers of the cloud based media
service.
EXAMINER'S REJECTI0NS 2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 19, 25 and 34 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kishore (US 2011/0246673 Al), Khilnani
(US 2012/0218887 Al), Valdez Kline (US 2012/0226663 Al) and Bhatia
(US 2010/0151851 Al). Answer 3-10.
The Examiner has rejected claims 20 through 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Kishore, Khilnani, Valdez Kline, Bhatia and
Ansari (US 2009/0070229 Al) Answer 10-12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant's arguments in the Brief, the Examiner's
rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellant's arguments.
Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's
2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief ("Br.") filed
September 22, 2017, Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed June 5, 2017,
and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed January 16, 2018.
2
Appeal2018-003499
Application 13/897,364
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is in error as the combination of Kishore, Khilnani,
Valdez Kline, and Bhatia do not teach the claim limitation directed to the
lower bit rate coded representation being determined based upon bandwidth
available for upload and the time taken to upload the media content. Br. 4--
6. Appellant's arguments focus on the teaching of Kishore, which was
relied upon by the Examiner as teaching this feature. Appellant asserts that
Kishore is concerned with a compression strategy when transferring a file
from a device to a server but it does not teach the bandwidth and time to
upload as being used to determine the lower bit rate coded representation.
Br. 6.
The Examiner responds to Appellant's arguments stating:
the bandwidth available and the time appear to be the two
separate factors, however the time taken and the bandwidth
available for upload are similar/related because if the upload
bandwidth is more it takes less time to upload and if the upload
bandwidth is less, it takes more time to upload. Kishore teaches
the concept of compressing the media at the client for upload
and to transfer the file over limited bandwidth and in less
amount of time ( see Kishore par 0021 ); Kishore further
discloses factors to compress the file such as data rate, cost
associate with the data transfer, memory constraint and other
factors (see Kishore par 0023). It is obvious that one ordinary
skill in the art with the teaching of Kishore to consider the
upload bandwidth/time to upload when compressing the file.
Answer 12.
We concur with the Examiner. Claim 1 recites the uploading of the
lower bit rate coded representation is determined based upon bandwidth and
time to upload the media content. We concur with the Examiner that time to
3
Appeal2018-003499
Application 13/897,364
upload is related to the bandwidth available and that it is obvious in light of
the cited teachings is Kishore. In addition to the findings and rationale
provided by the Examiner, we note that Kishore teaches that in order for
compression before uploading to be performed the formula in equation 1
must be satisfied. See paragraph 28. We note that equation 1 includes both
bandwidth and time (file size/bandwidth) to transfer the file. Further, we
note that Kishore teaches that the compression rate used in equation 1, can
be different based upon selected compression algorithms. See para 30-31.
Thus, Kishore also teaches whether to compress (which depends upon the
compression algorithm selected) the file to upload, and thus the lower bit-
rate coded representation, is based upon bandwidth and upload time.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of the references make obvious
the claim limitation directed to the lower bit rate coded representation being
determined based upon bandwidth and time taken to up load the media
content.
Appellant additionally argues that claim 1 recites a limitation directed
to the uploading of the converted media content being scheduled based upon
user experience requirements parameters of customers of the cloud based
media services. Br. 6. Appellant argues, that these features are not taught
by Valdez Kline, and that in Bhatiaas the parameters discussed in the
portions of the references cited by the Examiner to teach these features are :
associated with the client device/user terminal that is uploading
the content, whereas in independent claim 1, user experience
requirement parameters are associated with customers of the
cloud based media service. For example, user experience
requirement parameters are statistics collected from the client
devices to which the multiple chunks of media content are
4
Appeal2018-003499
Application 13/897,364
served from the upload end ( e.g. please see paragraphs 23 of
Appellant's specification).
Br. 8 ( emphasis omitted).
The Examiner has cited to several teachings in Valdez Kline and
Bhatia to support the finding the scheduling of the uploading of the media
limitation is obvious over the prior art. Answer 4--5, 12-13. We have
reviewed the cited teachings and the Examiner's rationale and concur with
the Examiner's findings. We note that Appellant's arguments are not
persuasive of error. Representative claim 1 merely recites that the schedule
is based upon experience requirement of customers of the cloud based media
service. The claim does not preclude the client that uploads the content from
being considered a customer (i.e. the claim does not limit the customer to be
the receiver of a download from the cloud as is implied by Appellant's
arguments). While Appellant's Specification may provide examples where
this is the case, we decline to import such limitations from the Specification
into the claims. Thus, Appellant's arguments are not commensurate with the
scope of representative claim 1 and are accordingly unpersuasive.
The above two issues are the only issues raised by Appellant's
arguments, with respect to representative claim 1. As we are not persuaded
of error by Appellant's arguments with respect to these issues we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of representative claim 1, and claims 2 through 19, 25
and 34 grouped with claim 1 and similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kishore, Khilnani, Valdez Kline and Bhatia.
Appellant has not presented separate arguments with respect to the
rejections of dependent claims 20 through 24. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of these claims for the reasons discussed with respect
to independent claims 1.
5
Appeal2018-003499
Application 13/897,364
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 through 34 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
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) (2016).
AFFIRMED
6