Tom BrownDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 3, 20212020003901 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2021) 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. 12/510,733 07/28/2009 Tom Brown 007412.00810 2433 71867 7590 05/03/2021 BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD ATTORNEYS FOR CLIENT NUMBER 007412 1100 13th STREET, N.W. SUITE 1200 WASHINGTON, DC 20005-4051 EXAMINER RETTA, YEHDEGA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3688 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/03/2021 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): PTO-71867@bannerwitcoff.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TOM BROWN ___________ Appeal 2020-003901 Application 12/510,733 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26 and 33–41, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. (Appeal Br. 3.) Claims 2–7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 25, and 27–32 have been cancelled. (Claims App.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. (Appeal Br. 1.) Appeal 2020-003901 Application 12/510,733 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter is directed to receiving a sequenced listing of pieces of content (e.g., movies from a video on demand service (Spec. ¶ 2.)). (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A method comprising: receiving, by one or more computing devices, a search request associated with an edge server in a content delivery network, the search request comprising one or more search criteria; determining, by the one or more computing devices, search results comprising a plurality of assets responsive to the one or more search criteria in the search request; determining, by the one or more computing devices and based on a current bandwidth usage of the content delivery network, that one or more additional criteria are to be applied to the search results, wherein the one or more additional criteria comprise, for each asset of the plurality of assets, an indication of whether that asset is stored on the edge server; based on the determining that the one or more additional criteria are to be applied to the search results, generating a list of ranked search results by sorting the search results according to the one or more additional criteria; and transmitting the list of ranked search results to a user device. Appeal 2020-003901 Application 12/510,733 3 REFERENCES Name Reference Date Bhagavath et al. US 6,505,169 B1 Jan. 7, 2003 Slater et al. US 2004/0010588 A1 Jan. 15, 2004 Tsukidate et al. US 2004/0064832 A1 Apr. 1, 2004 Osuga US 2011/0035441 A1 Feb. 10, 2011 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 19, 21, 23, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Osuga and Slater. Claims 9, 11, 13, 16, 24, and 34–41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Osuga, Slater, and Tsukidate. Claims 8 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Osuga, Slater, Tsukidate, and Bhagavath. OPINION § 103 Rejection—Osuga and Slater We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Reply Br. 3) that the combination of Osuga and Slater would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “determining, by the one or more computing devices and based on a current bandwidth usage of the content delivery network, that one or more additional criteria are to be applied to the search results, wherein the one or more additional criteria comprise . . . an indication of whether that asset is stored on the edge server.” The Examiner found that the edge server of Osuga, which contains a content list, corresponds to the limitation “determining, by the one or more computing devices . . . that one or more additional criteria are to be applied Appeal 2020-003901 Application 12/510,733 4 to the search results, wherein the one or more additional criteria comprise, for each asset of the plurality of assets, an indication of whether that asset is stored on the edge server.” (Ans. 4; see also Final Act. 3.) The Examiner further found that the demand director server of Slater, which monitors the usage of resources, corresponds to the limitation “determining, by the one or more computing devices . . . current bandwidth usage of the content delivery network.” (Ans. 4–5.) The Examiner concluded that “[i]t would have been obvious . . . to perform Osuga’s sorting and ranking of the content, based on the current bandwidth usage, so that the additional criteria is applied only when there is a decrease in bandwidth (high demand) in order to save the resources required for the sorting and ranking.” (Final Act. 4.) We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. Osuga relates “to a delivery system that delivers . . . content to a user terminal through a cache such as a proxy server or an edge server.” (¶ 1.) Osuga explains that a delivery system “delivers . . . a content list . . . presented on the basis of the storage state of contents cached in the proxy server or the edge server in order to increase the cache hit ratio.” (¶ 50.) Because Osuga explains that the delivery system delivers a content list on the basis of storage state in the edge server, Osuga teaches the limitation “determining, by the one or more computing devices . . . that one or more additional criteria are to be applied to the search results, wherein the one or more additional criteria comprise . . . an indication of whether that asset is stored on the edge server.” Slater “relates to serving out video over a network of video servers.” (¶ 2.) Slater explains that Appeal 2020-003901 Application 12/510,733 5 [t]he demand director can monitor and manage distribution of resources across the resource servers, and can mediate requests for resources to be served out by the resource servers to direct a request for resource-serving to a resource server chosen by the demand director in accordance with which resource servers are capable of serving out the requested resource (¶ 52), for example, available bandwidth (¶ 90). Similarly, Slater explains data storage management (¶ 42), includes the steps of “(1) monitoring the usage of a servable resource” (¶ 43), “(2) determining if the usage of the resource has increased or decreased” (¶ 44), and “(3a) introducing an additional resource server to the network” (¶ 45). Because Slater explains that demand director monitors and manages distribution of resources, Slater teaches the limitation “determining, by the one or more computing devices . . . current bandwidth usage of the content delivery network.” Although the Examiner cited to: (i) the delivery system of Osuga, which presents a content list stored on the edge server; and (ii) the demand director of Slater, which monitors bandwidth and adds additional resources, the Examiner has provided insufficient evidence to support a finding that the combination of Osuga and Slater teaches the limitation “determining, by the one or more computing devices and based on a current bandwidth usage of the content delivery network, that one or more additional criteria are to be applied to the search results.” In particular, the Examiner had not adequately explained how the delivery system of Osuga is causally related to the demand director of Slater for monitoring bandwidth, when the delivery system of Osuga presents a content list stored on the edge server, regardless of bandwidth availability. Appeal 2020-003901 Application 12/510,733 6 Thus, on this record, the Examiner has not demonstrated that the combination of Slater and Osuga teaches the limitation “determining, by the one or more computing devices and based on a current bandwidth usage of the content delivery network, that one or more additional criteria are to be applied to the search results,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments as follows: [C]ombining Slater with Osuga would not result in the claimed features. Slater adds another server to a video streaming platform when bandwidth usage increases (and uses that additional server to stream video to a user). However, the addition of another server would not change the way in which Osuga’s content list display unit sorts/organizes its search results. (Reply Br. 3 (citation omitted).) Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Independent claim 19 recites limitations similar to those discussed with respect to claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 19, as well as dependent claims 21, 23, and 26, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 19. § 103 Rejection—Osuga, Slater, and Tsukidate Claims 9, 24, and 35–41 depend from independent claims 1 and 19. Independent claim 11 recites limitations similar to those discussed with respect to claim 1, and claims 13, 16, and 34 depend from claim 11. Tsukidate was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 9, 11, 13, 16, 24, and 34–41. (Final Act. 5–9.) However, the Appeal 2020-003901 Application 12/510,733 7 Examiner’s application of Tsukidate does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Osuga and Slater. § 103 Rejection—Osuga, Slater, Tsukidate, and Bhagavath Claims 8 and 33 depend from independent claims 1 and 11. Bhagavath was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 8 and 33. (Final Act. 9–10.) However, the Examiner’s application of Bhagavath does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Osuga, Slater, and Tsukidate. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, and 33–41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. SUMMARY DECISION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 19, 21, 23, 26 103(a) Osuga, Slater 1, 19, 21, 23, 26 9, 11, 13, 16, 24, 34–41 103(a) Osuga, Slater, Tsukidate 9, 11, 13, 16, 24, 34–41 8, 33 103(a) Osuga, Slater, Tsukidate, Bhagavath 8, 33 Overall Outcome 1, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 33–41 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation