Charles Nung. Lo et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 1, 2019

14264132 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2019)

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.
14/264,132 04/29/2014 Charles Nung LO 133747 / 1376-1260 1081
111523 7590 08/01/2019
The Marbury Law Group/Qualcomm
11800 Sunrise Valley Drive, 15th Floor
Reston, VA 20191
EXAMINER
FAN, JOHN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2019 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
ptonoticesqc@marburylaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHARLES NUNG LO, THOMAS STOCKHAMMER, KEVIN
ROLAND FALL, CARLOS MARCELO DIAZ PAZOS, JUN WANG,
NIKOLAI KONRAD LEUNG, and GORDON KENT WALKER
________________

Appeal 2018-0070831
Application 14/264,132
Technology Center 2400
_________________

Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–20, all of the pending claims. Final Act. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 In this Decision, we refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
February 8, 2018) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 27, 2018); the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed August 23, 2017); the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 11, 2018); and the originally-filed
Specification (“Spec.,” filed April 29, 2014). Rather than repeat the
Examiner’s findings and determinations and Appellants’ contentions in their
entirety, we refer to these documents.
2 Appellants assert QUALCOMM Inc. is the real party-in-interest. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-007083
Application 14/264,132

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The methods “of the various embodiments enable [hypertext transfer
protocol (‘HTTP’)] redirect messages to indicate content access policy
information. In this manner, policy rules may be implemented based on the
policy information in the HTTP redirect messages to control network
congestion and/or quality of service (‘QoS’).” Spec. ¶ 4. In particular, “[a]n
HTTP application/client running on a processor of a receiver device may
send HTTP Get() requests to an HTTP server to request a file associated
with a specific address, such as a Uniform Resource Locator (‘URL’) and/or
Uniform Resource Indicator (‘URI’).” Id. ¶ 34. “In response to receiving an
indication of a network congestion event the HTTP server may send HTTP
redirect messages (e.g., HTTP 3xx series status coded messages) indicating
one or more alternative resource ID and access policy information in
response to received HTTP Get() requests.” Id. ¶ 35.
As noted above, claims 1–20 are pending. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are
independent. App. Br. 12–16 (Claims App’x). Claims 2–8 depend directly
or indirectly from claim 1, claims 10–16 depend directly or indirectly from
claim 9, and claims 18–20 depend directly or indirectly from claim 17. Id. at
12–17. Claim 9 recites devices and claim 17 recites computer-readable
media having “processor-executable instructions to perform operations” of
the methods of claim 1. Id. Therefore, we focus our analysis on the shared
limitations of these independent claims. See also Accenture Global Servs.
GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
(“Although CLS Bank issued as a plurality opinion, in that case a majority of
the court held that system claims that closely track method claims and are
Appeal 2018-007083
Application 14/264,132

3

grounded by the same meaningful limitations will generally rise and fall
together.”) (Citation omitted).
Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is
representative.
1. A method for providing a resource from a Hypertext
Transfer Protocol (HTTP) server to an HTTP client, comprising:
receiving, in a processor, an HTTP redirect message including
two or more alternate resource IDs and one or more access
policy information elements, wherein the two or more alternate
resource IDs are different URIs of alternative versions of a
requested resource; and
selecting, in the processor, one of the two or more alternate
resource IDs based at least in part on the one or more access
policy information elements.
Id. at 12 (emphasis added).
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Name3 Number Publ’d Filed
Encarnacion US 2005/0138137 A1 Jun. 23, 2005 Dec. 19, 2003
Shamia US 2006/0195556 A1 Aug. 31, 2006 Jan. 3, 2006
Liu US 2012/0207088 A1 Aug. 16, 2012 Feb. 9, 2012
Lyon US 2013/0103785 A1 Apr. 25, 2013 Feb. 3, 2011
The Examiner rejects claims 1–7, 9–15, and 17–19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Lyon, Shamia,
and Encarnacion; and claims 8, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2018-007083
Application 14/264,132

4

rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Lyon, Shamia,
Encarnacion, and Liu. Final Act. 4–24.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We address the rejections below.
ANALYSIS
1. Obviousness Over Lyon, Shamia, and Encarnacion
a. Independent Claim 1
Claim 1 stands rejected as unpatentable over the combined teachings
of Lyon, Shamia, and Encarnacion. Final Act. 4–7. The Examiner
acknowledges that, “[a]lthough Lyon and Shamia teach the substantial
features of applicant’s claimed invention, Lyon and Shamia fails to
expressly teach wherein the message including two or more alternate
resource IDs and access policy information, wherein the two or more
alternate resource IDs are different URIs of alternative versions of a
[requested] resource.” Id. at 6. The Examiner determines, however, that
Encarnacion teaches this limitation and that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Encarnacion with
those of Lyon and Shamia to achieve the methods recited in claim 1. Id. at
6–7.
Appellants argue that Encarnacion does not teach or suggest that “an
HTTP redirect message including two or more alternate resource IDs and
one or more access policy information elements, wherein the two or more
Appeal 2018-007083
Application 14/264,132

5

alternate resource IDs are different URIs of alternative versions of a
requested resource. App. Br. 6–9; Reply Br. 3–4; see App. Br. 12 (Claims
App’x) (emphases added)). For the reasons given below, we agree with
Appellants and do not sustain this rejection.
Encarnacion teaches, “the retrieval of actual resource content using
the HTTP GET protocol (or other protocol) can also optionally be made
conditional on distribution criteria.” Encarnacion ¶ 102; see id. ¶¶ 210
(“The resource information sharing functionality 322 can silently deny
access to a media rendering device if its [unique device number (UDN)]
matches an already detected UDN.”), 236 (“The URL includes a first field
that identifies a protocol scheme. The protocol scheme defines the
technique used to access the resource content item.”). Thus, Encarnacion
teaches or suggests that the request message includes a separate, access
policy information element. Final Act. 6; see Ans. 7 (citing Encarnacion
¶ 236 (“The URL includes a first field that identifies a protocol scheme. The
protocol scheme defines the technique used to access the resource content
item. In this case, the first field specifies ‘http,’ indicating that the resource
content item is to be accessed using the hypertext transfer protocol
technique.”)).
However, Encarnacion teaches that
the resource information sharing functionality 322 uses resource
locators (such as, but not limited to, HTTP URLs) to define the
location of its resources. A component of each resource locator
is a resource ID (e.g., ResourceID) that identifies the associated
resource content. The resource information sharing functionality
322 can provide yet another security safeguard by periodically
changing the resource locators that identify its resource content
items.
Encarnacion ¶ 212 (emphasis added); see Final Act. 6–7; Ans. 6; see also
Appeal 2018-007083
Application 14/264,132

6

Ans. 6 (discussing use of modified or unmodified URLs). Thus,
Encarnacion teaches the HTTP GET request includes periodically changing
resource locators.
Referring to Figure 3, Encarnacion explains, “the retrieval of resource
information from the media server 302 can include four principal exchanges
of information.” Spec. ¶ 219. In the first exchange,
a consumer can use control point 316 to send a UPnP query to
the media server 302. This UPnP query can be structured as a
browse request or a search request. In a browse request, the
consumer’s intent is to scan a collection of resource metadata
associated with the resources provided by the media server 302.
Id.
In the second exchange,
the media server 302 responds by presenting resource metadata
associated with one or more resources (e.g., files in the resource
store 320) that meet the consumer’s request. . . . This resource
metadata can also include resource locators (such as URLs) that
identify the respective network locations from which the
resource content items can be retrieved[]. To facilitate
discussion, in this section, the specific use of URLs in
conjunction with an HTTP server is assumed; however, the
principles described here can be applied to other kinds of
resource locators and associated resource content servers.
Id. ¶ 220 (emphasis added).
In the third exchange, when,
after viewing the resource metadata, the consumer selects a
corresponding resource content item to be played on a rendering
device, such as rendering device 306. In this case, in a third
exchange . . . , the consumer enables the rendering device 306 to
transmit a request to the media server 302 that instructs the media
server 302 to retrieve the selected resource content item. For
instance, the consumer can transfer the URL associated with the
Appeal 2018-007083
Application 14/264,132

7

selected resource content item to the rendering device 306.
Id. ¶ 221.
In the fourth exchange, “the media server 302 responds to the HTTP
GET request by retrieving the selected resource content item at the location
specified by the URL [and] the media server 302 then provides the selected
resource content item to the rendering device 306.” Id. ¶ 222.
The Examiner relies on Encarnacion’s teachings regarding the second
and the fourth exchange in support of the determination that Encarnacion
teaches “the message including two or more alternate resource IDs and one
or more access policy information elements . . . wherein the two or more
alternate resource IDs are different URIs.” Final Act. 6 (citing Encarnacion
¶¶ 102, 212, 220, 222, 224, 236); Ans. 6–7 (citing Encarnacion ¶¶ 102, 212,
220, 222, 224, 236). The Examiner, however, fails to demonstrate where
Encarnacion teaches or suggests that two different URIs are used locate
alternative versions of the same content for retrieval. In view of the
teachings of those portions of Encarnacion relied upon by the Examiner, we
agree with Appellants that neither of these exchanges (nor the first or third
exchanges) teaches a message including at least two “different URIs” that
are “alternate resource IDs . . . for alternative versions of a requested
resource.” App. Br. 6–7; Reply Br. 4; see App. Br. 12 (Claims App’x)
(emphasis added).
Consequently, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in
determining that the combined teachings of Lyon, Shamia, and Encarnacion
render independent claim 1 obvious, and we do not sustain that rejection.
Appeal 2018-007083
Application 14/264,132

8

b. Claims 2–7, 9–15, and 17–19
The Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Lyon, Shamia, and
Encarnacion to reject the claims 2–7, 9–15, and 17–19. Final Act. 7–21.
Appellants challenge the rejection of these claims based solely on the
contentions with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4. Thus, on this
record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 2–
7, 9–15, and 17–19 for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
2. Obviousness Over Lyon, Shamia, Encarnacion, and Liu
The Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Lyon, Shamia,
Encarnacion, and Liu to reject the claims 8, 16, and 20. Final Act. 21–24.
But, the Examiner does not rely on the additional teachings of Liu to cure
the deficiency of the rejection of claim 1, noted above. Id.; but see App.
Br. 10; Reply Br. 5. Appellants challenge the rejection of these claims based
solely on the contentions with respect to their base claims, claims 1, 9, and
17, respectively. App. Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 4. Thus, on this record, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 8, 16, and 20 for
the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
CONCLUSION
(1) The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–7, 9–15, and 17–19 as
rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Lyon, Shamia, and
Encarnacion.
(2) The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8, 16, and 20 as rendered
obvious over the combined teachings of Lyon, Shamia, Encarnacion,
and Liu.
(3) Thus, on this record, the Examiner has not shown claims 1–20 to be
Appeal 2018-007083
Application 14/264,132

9

unpatentable.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20.

REVERSED