Ex Parte Chu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 28, 2016

13202790 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/202,790 08/23/2011
46363 7590 11/01/2016
Tong, Rea, Bentley & Kim, LLC
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.
12 Christopher Way
Suite 105
Eatontown, NJ 07724
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas P Chu
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.
Chu 18-42-US-PCT 2001
EXAMINER
SHNERS, ASHLEY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2016 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):
docketing@trbklaw.com
ipsnarocp@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS P. CHU and RAMESH NAGARAJAN
Appeal2015-002836 1
Application 13/202,790
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and WSTIN BUSCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-002836
Application 13/202,790
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-9 and 12-21, which are all of the claims pending
in this appeal. Claims 10 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a
rejected claim, but the Examiner has indicated they would otherwise be
allowable if rewritten in independent form. App. Br. 5; Fin. Act. 21-23.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
distributing content to a plurality of user devices arranged in a tree structure.
Spec. 1 :22-28, Fig. 1. In particular, the user devices ( 102) are grouped in a
plurality of nodes/regions (110), each containing one or more regional trees
(111). For each regional tree, based on the number of unused ports therein,
and the order of a selected user device, a determination is made on whether
to include the user device (102) in the regional tree (111) or to create a new
region (110) for the selected user device (102). Abstr, Spec. 28:5-32.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention as follows:
1. A method for determining a media distribution tree for use
in distributing content to a plurality of user devices, comprising:
using a processor and a memory for:
grouping the user devices into a plurality of regions; determining, for
each of the regions, a respective regional tree to be formed by the user
devices grouped into the region, wherein, for at least one of the
2
Appeal2015-002836
Application 13/202,790
regions, determining the regional tree to be formed by the user devices
grouped into the region comprises:
selecting one of the user devices grouped into the region; determining,
based on an order of the selected one of the user devices and based on
one of a number of unused ports of the regional tree or an order of a
regional root node of the regional tree, whether to position the
selected one of the user devices within the regional tree of the region
or to create a new region for the selected one of the user devices; and
connecting the regional trees to determine thereby the media
distribution tree.
Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Padmanabham et al.
Liu et al.
Dube et al.
Hibino et al.
Breslau et al.
Bandholz et al.
US 2004/0143672 Al
US 2005/0201405 Al
US 2006/0153100 Al
US 2007/0116050 Al
US 2008/0212584 Al
US 2009/0219835 Al
Rejections on Appeal
July 22, 2004
Sept. 15, 2005
July 13, 2006
May 24, 2007
Sept. 04, 2008
Sept. 03, 2009
Claims 1---6, 8, 9, and 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Hibino, Dube, and
Bandholz.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hibino, Dube, Bandholz, and
Padmanabham.
3
Appeal2015-002836
Application 13/202,790
Claims 12-14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Hibino, Dube, Bandholz, and
Breslau.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hibino, Dube, Bandholz, and Liu.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hibino, Dube, Bandholz,
Padmanabham and Breslau.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 13-22, and the Reply Brief, pages 2-8.2
Appellants argue that the combination of Hibino, Dube, and Bandholz
does not teach or suggest "determining ... whether to position the selected
one of the user devices within the regional tree of the region or to create a
new region for the selected one of the user devices," as recited in
independent claim 1. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 2. In particular, Appellants
argue Hibino discloses selecting the number of nodes corresponding to the
maximum number of connections of a broadcasting station apparatus in an
order of the widest effective bandwidth. App. Br. 14--17 (citing Hibino
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Sept. 11, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed Dec. 9,
2014) and the Answer (mailed Nov. 18, 2014) for their respective details.
We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have
made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 3 7
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014).
4
Appeal2015-002836
Application 13/202,790
iii! 106, 109). According to Appellants, while the cited portions of Hibino
indicate the position of the user device relative to the tree as a whole, they
do not help determine whether to place the device in a regional tree or not.
Reply Br. 3. Further, Appellants argue the Examiner's reliance upon
Bandholz does not cure the noted deficiencies of Hibino. App. Br. 18.
These arguments are not persuasive because they are not responsive to
the specific findings made by the Examiner. In particular, the Examiner
finds that Hibino discloses using the maximum number of connections and
the widest effective bandwidth to determine whether to position a node of
user devices in the broadcasting station apparatus. Ans. 3--4, 23-24; Fin.
Act. 3--4 (citing Hibino iii! 105-12). Further, the Examiner relied upon
Dube's disclosure of dividing a node into geographical clusters to modify
Hibino, and to thereby teach the determination of the whether to place the
user device at the regional tree level. Id. at 4 (citing Dube if 29).
We find nowhere in Appellants' briefs any response regarding the
Examiner's finding that the cited disclosure of Dube complements Hibino
and Bandholz to teach the disputed limitation. Instead, Appellants
mischaracterize the Examiner's rejection as relying on only Hibino and
Bandholz for the cited teaching without accounting for the Examiner's
reliance upon Dube.3 Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-9 and 12-21, because Appellants reiterate
substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
3 In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not
the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued
by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.")
5
Appeal2015-002836
Application 13/202,790
patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2-9, and 12-21 fall therewith. See 3 7
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims
1-9 and 12-21.
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