Ex Parte Adams et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2018

14249550 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/249,550 04/10/2014
79980 7590 09/14/2018
Keohane & D'Alessandro
1881 Western Avenue Suite 180
Albany, NY 12203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brian C. Adams
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.
END920 l 30225US 1 9711
EXAMINER
TILLERY, RASHAWNN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2018 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):
drubbone@kdiplaw.com
Docket@Kdiplaw.com
lcronk@kdiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN C. ADAMS, CHRISTOPHER E. HOLADAY,
WILLIAM D. MORGAN, and RYAN L. WHITMAN
Appeal2018-001355
Application 14/249,550
Technology Center 3600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm. 1
1 Our Decision refers to the Specification ("Spec.") filed April 10, 2014, the
Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed September 21, 2016, the Appeal
Brief ("App. Br.") filed May 30, 2017, and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.")
mailed September 22, 2017.
Appeal2018-001355
Application 14/249,550
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to automatically selecting, from a metafile, a
preferred density level by a client device based on display properties of a
client application. Spec. 16 (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for selecting and delivering density-specific visual
content to a client application, the method comprising the
computer-implemented steps of:
receiving a request from a client application for visual data;
providing a metafile containing a set of available density levels
of the visual data to a client device having the client application
in response to the receiving; and
automatically selecting, from the metafile, a preferred density
level from the set of available density levels of the visual data
by the client device based on a set of display properties of the
client application.
App. Br. 8 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTION
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
Krahnstoever (US 2014/0082661 Al; Mar. 20, 2014) and Deshpande
(US 2007/0165935 Al; July 19, 2007). Final Act. 3-7.
EXAMINER'S FINDINGS
The Examiner finds in relation to independent claims 1, 8 and 15 that
Krahnstoever teaches the claim limitation of "automatically selecting, from
the metafile, a preferred density level from the set of available density levels
of the visual data based on a set of display properties of the client
application." Final Act. 3, 5, 6 (citing Krahnstoever Fig. 3 [330], ,r 43). The
2
Appeal2018-001355
Application 14/249,550
Examiner acknowledges Krahnstoever does not expressly disclose client-
based selection of the set of available density levels. However, the
Examiner combines Deshpande as teaching "receiving an image index file
containing a set of image resolutions at a client device and allowing
selection of an optimal resolution at the client device." Id. (citing
Deshpande ,r 6). The Examiner contends it would have been obvious to
combine these teachings of Krahnstoever and Deshpande "in an effort to
decrease latency and speed[] the image transmission process." Id. at 3--4.
APPELLANTS' ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Krahnstoever teaches selecting a density level
of a storyboard that corresponds to a video, but not the video itself. App.
Br. 4--5. However, Krahnstoever's storyboard images are image frames
from a video stream. See, e.g., Krahnstoever ,r,r 3, 36, 39. We do not find
this argument persuasive to show Examiner error. Adjusting the density
level of a storyboard image certainly suggests adjusting the density level of
corresponding video because the video stream is composed of individual
image frames.
Moreover, the claims recite "visual data" and do not mention video.
Thus, Appellants' argument is not commensurate with the scope of the
appealed claims. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
Further, we note that claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification in which they appear. In re
Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The
Specification states that one example of "visual data" is an "image
resource." Spec. ,r 16. Considered in light of the Specification, the claimed
3
Appeal2018-001355
Application 14/249,550
"visual data" includes an "image resource" which may be broadly, but
reasonably, interpreted to encompass Krahnstoever's storyboard image.
Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, we find Appellants' argument
unpersuasive to show Examiner error.
Appellants next argue that Krahnstoever' s storyboard resolution level
is not selected "by the client device" from ". . . a metafile
containing a set of available density levels of the visual data
[provided] to a client device ... " as in the claimed invention, but
rather is selected at the server using device parameters sent to the
server by the client device.
App. Br. 5.
However, the Examiner relies on Deshpande, not Krahnstoever, for
the teaching of client-side selection of density level from an index file
(i.e., the claimed "metafile"). Final Act. 3, 5. Appellants' argument attacks
the references individually, rather than considering what the combined
references would have suggested to the person of ordinary skill in the art.
"Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references." In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
("Merck") (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981) ("Keller")).
Appellants further argue "Deshpande cannot be characterized as being
performed automatically by the client device, as in the claimed invention."
App. Br. 5. However, the Examiner relies on Krahnstoever, not Deshpande,
to teach automatic selection of density level, and relies on Deshpande to
teach client-side selection of density level. Final Act. 3, 5, 6 ( citing
Krahnstoever Fig. 3 [330], ,r 43 and Deshpande ,r 6). Again, the references
must be considered in combination in the obviousness analysis, and
4
Appeal2018-001355
Application 14/249,550
attacking the references individually is not effective to show Examiner error.
See Merck, Keller, supra.
Appellants contend "Deshpande fails to teach or suggest that its index
file contains a set of density levels, such as those in the metafile in the
claimed invention." App. Br. 6. Similar to previous arguments, the
Examiner cited Krahnstoever, not Deshpande, for teaching that its manifest
file (the claimed "metafile") includes multiple resolution levels. Final
Act. 3, 5, 6 ( citing Krahnstoever Fig. 3 [330], ,r 43). Accordingly,
Appellants' argument is not persuasive. See Merck, Keller, supra.
Appellants next argue that "the passages of Krahnstoever cited by the
Examiner do not teach or suggest that its storyboard manifest, which is
provided to its client/user device, has a set of available density levels." App.
Br. 7. Appellants' argument misapprehends the Examiner's rejection. The
Examiner relies on Krahnstoever to teach a storyboard manifest, which
contains multiple available density levels. Final Act. 3, 5, 6 (citing
Krahnstoever Fig. 3 [330], ,r 43). The Examiner does not rely on
Krahnstoever, but on Deshpande, to teach client-side selection of density
level. Final Act. 3, 5, 6 (citing Deshpande ,r 6). Once again, Appellants'
argument attacks the references individually and fails to consider what the
combined teachings would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in
the art. See Merck, Keller, supra. Thus, we find Appellants' argument
unpersuasive to show Examiner error.
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2-7, 9-
14, and 16-20, which are not separately argued. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
5
Appeal2018-001355
Application 14/249,550
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 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).
AFFIRMED
6