Ex Parte Wee et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 23, 201311413992 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte SUSIE J. WEE and JOHN G. APOSTOLOPOULOS ____________________ Appeal 2011-000903 1 Application 11/413,992 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Co. (App. Br. 1.) Appeal 2011-000903 Application 11/413,992 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-20. (App. Br. 3.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellants’ Invention Appellants invented a method and system for storing a scalably encoded stream of media data in various nodes of a network. In particular, after partitioning, at an encoder node, the media data, first and second segments thereof are stored in first and second nodes, respectively, both being coupled over the network to the encoder node and a destination node. (Fig. 2, Spec. 4.) Representative Claim Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention as follows: 1. A method of storing a stream of media data that represents an instance of media content, said method comprising: separating scalably encoded data comprising encoded said media data into at least a first portion and a second portion at an encoder node; storing said first portion of said scalably encoded data on a first node in a network, wherein said first node is communicatively coupled to said encoder node over said network, wherein said first node is communicatively coupled to a destination node over said network; and storing said second portion of said scalably encoded data on a second node in said network, wherein said second node is Appeal 2011-000903 Application 11/413,992 3 communicatively coupled to said encoder node over said network, wherein said second node is communicatively coupled to said destination node over said network. Prior Art Relied Upon The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of unpatentability: Buxton US 2003/0204856 A1 Oct. 30, 2003 Mayer US 2004/0128343 A1 Jul. 1, 2004 Lee US 7,028,096 B1 Apr. 11, 2006 Yamauchi US 7,328,353 B2 Feb. 5, 2008 Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows: 1. Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention. 2. Claims 1-7, 9-14, 16-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Mayer and Lee. 3. Claims 8 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Mayer, Lee, and Buxton. 4. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Mayer, Lee, and Yamauchi. Appeal 2011-000903 Application 11/413,992 4 ANALYSIS We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in the Appeal Brief 9-26 and Reply Brief 2-5. Indefiniteness Rejection Dispositive Issue 1: Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 second paragraph, did the Examiner err in concluding that claims 7 and 8 are indefinite? Appellants argue the Examiner erred in concluding the limitation of selecting scalably encoded data portions and network nodes according to information pertaining thereto. In particular, Appellants argue because the Specification indicates the scalable encoded data information entails color, resolution levels, rate distortion, security sensitivity, and time delivery requirements, one of ordinary skill in the art, having read the Specification, would have been apprised of the scope of claim 7. (App. Br. 10.) Similarly, Appellants argue the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been apprised of the scope of claim 8 because the Specification indicates the network information includes bandwidth, packet delivery rates, time, and proximity information. (Id.) In response, the Examiner concludes that, because the cited phrases are overly broad and could encompass any other information not particularly recited in Appellants’ Specification, these recitations render claims 7 and 8 indefinite. (Ans. 16 and 17.) We do not agree with the Examiner. In particular, we decline the Examiner’s invitation to substitute the breadth of the claims with indefiniteness. The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. Appeal 2011-000903 Application 11/413,992 5 § 112, second paragraph, is “whether those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). We conclude one of ordinary skill in the art having read Appellants’ Specification would have been apprised that the claimed information pertains to the different characteristics of the scalably encoded data and the network. Therefore, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been able to ascertain the scope of the claims. It follows that Appellants have shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 8 as being indefinite. Prior Art Rejections Dispositive Issue 2: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Mayer and Lee teaches or suggest first and second nodes communicatively coupled to an encoder node and a destination node over a network, as recited in claim 1? Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the proffered combination of references teaches or suggests the disputed limitations emphasized above. In particular, Appellants argue that while Mayer discloses a production facility and a main library for storing data segments, those facilities are located on the same node, and they are not connected over the Internet network. (App. Br. 14-15.) Consequently, Appellants submit Mayer teaches away from the claimed invention. (Id. at 15.) Additionally, Appellants argue Lee’s disclosure of a local proxy server Appeal 2011-000903 Application 11/413,992 6 delivering data segments to a client device does not cure the noted deficiencies of Mayer. (Id. at 16.) In response, the Examiner finds that because the production facility, the main library, and the local library are all integral elements of the network as a whole, irrespective of the direct communication link between the main library and the production facility, these network components do communicate over the network. (Ans. 17-19.) Therefore, the Examiner finds Mayer’s disclosure teaches the disputed limitations. (Id.) On the record before us, we find no error with the Examiner’s obviousness rejection. We note at the outset, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Mayer discloses a production facility having a program splitter for splitting a program into program segments that are stored in a main library, a local library, and a user station communicatively connected thereto. (Ans. 17, App. Br. 13-14.) However, Appellants dispute the Examiner’s finding that such connection takes place over a single network as required by the claim. (Reply Br. 3.) We do not agree with Appellants. While Appellants correctly point out that Mayer discloses a direct connection between the production facility and the main library, which communicates with the user node and the local library via the Internet network, we find nothing in the claim that precludes a direct link between two elements on a network. Similarly, we find nothing in the claim that precludes the different nodes in the network from being connected to one another via different connections. Nor do we find anything in the claim that requires a direct connection between each of the nodes and the network. Appeal 2011-000903 Application 11/413,992 7 Instead, the claim merely requires the different nodes recited therein be communicatively coupled to one another over a network. We are therefore satisfied, given the breadth of the claim, Mayer’s disclosure of the production facility, the main library, the local library and the user client device, all exchanging data over the Internet network, teaches those devices are communicatively coupled to one another via the Internet network. (Figs. 1 and 2.) Alternatively, we find it would only require routine skill for the ordinarily skilled artisan to directly couple the production facility to the Internet network to thereby allow each of the components to have a separate and dedicated node on the Internet network to thereby exchange data with other peer nodes. Consequently, Appellants’ argument that Lee does not cure Mayer’s failure of teaching the nodes being communicatively coupled through the network is unpersuasive. Similarly, we find unavailing Appellants’ teaching away arguments. It therefore follows that Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Regarding the rejection of claim 16, Appellants argue because Mayer discloses pre-storing program segments in a user device memory prior to a request for the program; the reference does not teach receiving a first data portion and a second data portion of the encoded data in response to a request for media content data. (App. Br. 18-20.) We do not agree with Appellants. Instead we agree with the Examiner that Mayer’s disclosure of transmitting both program segments to a user in response to a user request when a pre-stored segment associated therewith cannot be located in Appeal 2011-000903 Application 11/413,992 8 memory of the user device. (¶ ¶[0039], [0040]; Ans. 21, 22.) Consequently, Appellants’ argument that Lee does not cure Mayer’s failure of disclosing providing a data segment in response to a user request is unpersuasive. Similarly, we find unavailing Appellants’ teaching away arguments. It therefore follows that Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16. Regarding the rejection of claims 2-7, 9-15, and 17-20, because Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claims 1 and 16 above, claims 2-7, 9-15, and 17-20 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.37(c)(1)(vii). Further, while Appellants raised additional arguments for patentability of the cited claims, we find the Examiner has rebutted, in the Answer, each and every one of those arguments by a preponderance of the evidence. (Ans. 22-24.) Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning, incorporated herein by reference. Consequently, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-7, 9-15, and 17-20. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection of claims 1-20 as set forth above. However, we reverse the indefiniteness rejection of claims 7 and 8. Appeal 2011-000903 Application 11/413,992 9 Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1). 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 ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation