Ex Parte Tate et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 17, 2012

09737050 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER TATE and BRIAN UNITT
____________

Appeal 2009-012211
Application 09/737,050
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-012211
Application 09/737,050

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-15, 17-19, 21-23, and 25.1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention distributes time-staggered data streams, for
example, in a Near Video On-Demand (NVOD) system. A multicast server
(1) receives content and control data from a content providing server, and (2)
forwards data stream versions of the content, offset in time by a
predetermined period defined in the control data. A subscriber may then
view the content upon request by tuning to a channel for one of the data
streams. See generally Spec. 1:5-8, 7:18-30, 9:32–12:6. Claim 1 is
illustrative with key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A system for streaming data comprising a content providing server
capable of storing content and communicating the content to a plurality of
client terminator units via a communications network in response to requests
for the content, and a distribution server coupled in-line between the content
providing server and the plurality of client terminator units, wherein the
distribution server is arranged to generate a plurality of onward data streams
and transmit the plurality of onward data streams to the plurality of client
terminator units, respectively, in response to control data received from the
content providing server and in response to an incoming data stream
received or being received from the content providing server, the incoming
data stream corresponding to the content, wherein the plurality of onward
data streams correspond substantially to the content and the distribution
server offsets in time each of the plurality of onward data streams with

1 Although the Examiner indicates that the status of the claims in
Appellants’ Brief is incorrect, the Examiner nevertheless does not provide a
corrected claim status. Ans. 2. We therefore presume that the Examiner’s
statement is a typographical error and that the claim status in the Brief (App.
Br. 2) is correct.
Appeal 2009-012211
Application 09/737,050

3
respect to a preceding one of said plurality of onward data streams by a
single offset value indicated in the control data.
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Banker
DeBey
Hendricks

Fluss

Hodge
US 5,357,276
US 5,701,582
US 6,201,536 B1

US 6,304,578 B1

US 6,564,381 B1
Oct. 18, 1994
Dec. 23, 1997
Mar. 13, 2001
(filed Dec. 2, 1994)
Oct. 16, 2001
(filed May 1, 1998)
May 13, 2003
(filed Sept. 25, 1998)

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22,
and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hendricks, Hodge,
and Banker. Ans. 3-10.2,3
2. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 11, 15, 19, and 23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hendricks, Hodge, Banker, and
DeBey. Ans. 11.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Hendricks, Hodge, Banker, and Fluss. Ans. 11-14.

2 Although the Examiner includes claim 7 in the statement of the rejection,
we nonetheless presume that the Examiner intended to omit this claim here
since it was (1) not further discussed in this rejection, and (2) rejected over
Hendricks, Hodge, Banker, Fluss, and DeBey below. We therefore present
the correct claim listing here for clarity.
3 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed January 10,
2008; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 10, 2008; and (3) the Reply
Brief filed June 10, 2008.
Appeal 2009-012211
Application 09/737,050

4
4. The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hendricks, Hodge, Banker, Fluss, and DeBey. Ans. 14-
15.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HENDRICKS, HODGE, AND BANKER
The Examiner finds that Hendricks discloses every recited feature of
representative claim 1 except for (1) communicating content to client
terminator units in response to requests for the content, and (2) a distribution
server that offsets in time plural data streams corresponding to the content
by a single offset value. The Examiner cites Hodge and Banker,
respectively, as teaching these features in concluding that the claim would
have been obvious. Ans. 3-6.
Appellants argue that Hendricks’ cable headend does not effect any
timing offsets because program start times are controlled and assigned by the
operations center. App. Br. 9-14. Accordingly, Appellants argue, Banker’s
single offset value cannot properly be combined with Hendricks’ system
because it would corrupt the program scheduling of the operations center.
Id.
The issue before us, then, is as follows:

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Hendricks, Hodge, and Banker collectively would have taught or
suggested a distribution server that offsets in time plural data streams by a
single offset value indicated in control data received from a content
providing server?
Appeal 2009-012211
Application 09/737,050

5

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Hendricks discloses a television program delivery system 200 that
includes an operations center 202 that packages programs for transmission
and generates a program control information signal. Hendricks, col. 6, ll.
56-67; col. 8, ll. 8-10; Fig. 1. The operations center delivers program
packages with associated program control information signals to a cable
headend 208. Hendricks, col. 8, ll. 30-34. The program control information
signal may include the start times of programs in the associated program
package. Hendricks, col. 8, ll. 34-41.
2. Hendricks’ system includes an NVOD program delivery technique
wherein a program can be displayed on multiple program channels with
staggered start times. Hendricks, col. 34, ll. 30-35. Upon subscriber request
for a particular program, the network manager 214, which is located at the
cable headend, (1) determines the channel with the next available staggered
start time for the program, (2) forwards the request to a file server 215 to
find the appropriate data for the request, and (3) sends the data to the
subscriber. Hendricks, col. 34, ll. 52-58.
3. Banker discloses an NVOD service wherein a program is shown
sequentially on different channels. Banker, col. 11, ll. 23-28. The offset
time between each of the program start times on the different channels can
be 15 minutes. Banker, col. 11, 28-33; Fig. 9.

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative claim 1 which recites, in pertinent
Appeal 2009-012211
Application 09/737,050

6
part, “the distribution server offsets in time each of the plurality of onward
data streams with respect to a preceding one of said plurality of onward data
streams by a single offset value indicated in the control data.”
Hendricks’ operations center sets program start times. FF 1. Further,
contrary to Appellants’ arguments, Hendricks’ cable headend implements
the staggered start times in the NVOD embodiment, and thus does effect
timing offsets. See FF 2; Ans. 15-16. Although Hendricks does not
explicitly describe how the start times in the NVOD embodiment are set, one
of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably infer that the operations center’s
program control information signal would provide these start times. See FF
1-2. That is, the start times for the NVOD embodiment must be set
somewhere, and, absent any other description of setting start times, one
would reasonably look to Hendricks’ program control information signal in
this regard. Moreover, Appellants admit that Hendricks discloses “all
programming scheduling for scheduled programs are controlled and
assigned by the operations center.” App. Br. 10 (emphasis added). Thus,
Hendricks’ NVOD system includes a content providing server (operations
center) that sends control data indicating start times to a distribution server
(cable headend) that offsets data streams in time in accordance with the start
times.
Banker discloses an NVOD system where the start time for each data
stream is offset by the same value with respect to the preceding data stream.
FF 3. That is, Banker discloses a single offset value. As the Examiner finds,
it would have been obvious to combine Banker’s single offset value with
Hendricks’ system. Ans. 5-6, 17-18. This would not corrupt Hendricks’
start times, as Appellants argue, but would merely require the operations
Appeal 2009-012211
Application 09/737,050

7
center to set a particular single offset value as the start time for NVOD
programs. Ans. 17-18. That is, for NVOD programs, there would be no
need to set multiple start times for each version of a program, but rather a
single offset value that applies to all versions of the program. See Ans. 18-
19. Hendricks’ operations center would still control the programming and
scheduling of NVOD programs.
Regarding Appellants’ Reply Brief arguments (Reply Br. 2-4), it is
within the ordinary skill in the art to substitute a single offset value for
multiple start times. First, start times are merely offsets from some point in
time. Second, in an NVOD system such as Banker’s, where the start times
begin at regular intervals for each version of a program, there is a clear
advantage to sending the interval information only once as a single offset
value, rather than specifying the same interval multiple times. Accordingly,
it would have been obvious to not only set regular intervals for different
versions of a program in Hendricks’ NVOD embodiment, but also to send a
single offset value to the cable headend to implement such timing. See Ans.
18-19.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 4, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 25 not
separately argued with particularity.
Although Appellants separately argue claim 3, the arguments
presented are similar to those presented regarding claim 1. See App. Br. 14.
We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed above.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to combine Banker’s single offset
value with Hendricks and Hodge such that Hendricks’ operations center
would provide the single offset value to the cable headend.
Appeal 2009-012211
Application 09/737,050

8

THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 2, 5-
7, 9, 11, 15, 19, and 23. Ans. 11-15. Despite nominally arguing these
claims separately, Appellants rely on the same arguments presented with
respect to claim 1. App. Br. 15. We are not persuaded by these arguments
for the reasons previously discussed.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-15, 17-19,
21-23, and 25 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-15, 17-19, 21-
23, and 25 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

babc