Ex Parte Corson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 13, 2012

09765593 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 13, 2012)

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.
09/765,593 01/22/2001 Greg Corson PA2407US 6716
15826 7590 08/13/2012
Carr & Ferrell LLP (SCEA)
120 Constitution Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025
EXAMINER
RAMAN, USHA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/13/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte GREG CORSON
____________

Appeal 2010-005616
Application 09/765,593
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-9, 11-26, and 28-47. The
Appellant appeals therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2010-005616
Application 09/765,593
2
INVENTION
The following claim illustrates the invention on appeal:
1. A method of delivering digital content from a server to a
user/subscriber device, comprising:
providing digital content;
dividing the digital content into a plurality of data chunks
prior to transmission;
determining a time schedule for the transmission of the
digital content, the time schedule being determined by the
server when the user/subscriber device makes a request for the
transmission of the digital content, the time schedule optimizing
bandwidth consumption;
pre-storing at least one of the plurality of data chunks on
the user/subscriber device independent of the time schedule and
prior to the transmission of the digital content;
transmitting the divided data chunks from the server to
the user/subscriber device according to the time schedule, the
transmission occurring over a communication network
comprising a plurality of channels, wherein each of the plurality
of data chunks are transmitted over the plurality of channels at a
frequency equal to a time index of the data chunk in the digital
content; and
removing particular divided data chunks from the time
schedule upon a determination that all user/subscriber devices
receiving the digital content have received the particular
divided data chunk to be removed, wherein the server may
determine that all the user/subscriber devices have received the
particular divided data chunks upon receipt of a data signal sent
to the server by all of the user/subscriber devices indicating
receipt of the particular divided data chunks.

REJECTION
Claims 1-9, 11-26, and 28-47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,701,582 ("DeBey") and U.S.
Patent No. 5,940,738 ("Rao").
Appeal 2010-005616
Application 09/765,593
3
DISCUSSION
Based on the dependencies of the claims, we will decide the appeal of
claims 1-9, 11-26, and 28-47 on the basis of independent claims 1, 23, and
41.
The issue before us follows. Did the Examiner err in finding that the
combined teachings of DeBey and Rao would have suggested removing
particular divided data chunks from a time schedule for the transmission of
the divided data chunks upon a determination that all user/subscriber devices
receiving the chunks have received the particular divided data chunk to be
removed, as required by independent claims 1, 23, and 41?
The question of obviousness is "based on underlying factual
determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches explicitly and
inherently . . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
(citations omitted).
Here, the Examiner admits that "DeBey is silent on the step of
removing particular divided data chunks from the time schedule upon a
determination that all user/subscriber devices receiving the digital content
have received the particular divided data chunk to be removed." (Ans. 5.)
The Examiner then makes the following findings.
Rao teaches that when a set top box is ceases to monitor a
program (such as due to completion of the program, see
column 16 lines 24-25), the set top box transmits a signal to the
server, and once the server has determined that no one else is
tuned to that channel, the server ceases transmission of
the program on that channel (i.e. deletes the segment on that
channel) so that the channel maybe re-allocated for other
services (opportunistic services). See column 20, lines 30-42
and column 16, lines 24-27.
(Id. at 16.)
Appeal 2010-005616
Application 09/765,593
4
For our part, we are unpersuaded that ceasing transmission of
a program on a channel because no one is tuned to that channel either
teaches or would have suggested removing a data chunk from a time
schedule for transmission thereof because all devices receiving digital
content containing the data chunk have received the particular data chunk.
In other words, we agree with the Appellant that "[f]ailure to monitor a
program over a particular channel (per Rao) does not suggest one or more
chunks of data having been received (as claimed)." (App. Br. 13.)
Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combined teachings of DeBey and Rao would have suggested removing
particular divided data chunks from a time schedule for the transmission of
the divided data chunks upon a determination that all user/subscriber devices
receiving the chunks have received the particular divided data chunk to be
removed, as required by independent claims 1, 23, and 41.

DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 23, and 41 and of claims 2-9, 11-
22, 24-26, 28-40, and 42-47, which depend therefrom.

REVERSED

llw