Ex Parte Eriksson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2017

13812558 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2017)

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.
13/812,558 01/28/2013 Ann-Christine Eriksson 3602-571 1318
6449 7590 09/29/2017
ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
607 14th Street, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
ASRES, HERMON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2449
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2017 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-PAT-Email @rfem. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANN-CHRISTINE ERIKSSON, THORSTEN
LOHMAR, MATHIAS SINTRON, and ROBERT SKOG
Appeal 2017-006241
Application 13/812,558
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—38. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1—8, 10-22 and 24—38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Gopalakrishnan (US 2011/0082924 Al; Apr. 7, 2011) and
Kovvali et al. (US 2010/0195602 Al; Aug. 5, 2010). Final Act. 4—16.
Appeal 2017-006241
Application 13/812,558
Claims 9 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Gopalakrishnan, Kovvali, and Arbel et al. (US 2009/0225671 Al; Sept. 10,
2009). Final Act. 17-18.
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to “a method of throttling a media
stream for transmission to a client via a radio access network, and a
corresponding network node.” Spec. 1:6—8. Claim 1 is illustrative and
reproduced below:
1. A method of streaming video content to a client via a Radio
Access Network (RAN), wherein the video content is divided into a plurality
of media segments comprising a first media segment and a second media
segment, the method comprising:
acquiring the first media segment of said video content, the first media
segment having a certain duration;
after acquiring the first media segment of said video content, dividing
the first media segment of said video content into a plurality of sub-
segments, the plurality of sub-segments comprising a first sub-segment and a
second sub-segment;
transmitting the first sub-segment to the client during a first time
interval having a length of tl; and
transmitting the second sub-segment to the client during a second time
interval having a length of t2, wherein
2
Appeal 2017-006241
Application 13/812,558
there is a third time interval between the end of the first time interval
and the beginning of second time interval, the third time interval having a
length of t3, and
during the entire third time interval the transmission of the first media
segment is stalled such that no part of the first media segment is transmitted
during the third time interval and such that the entire first media segment is
transmitted to the client during a fourth time interval having a length t4 that
is: i) greater than or equal to tl +12 +13 and ii) shorter than or equal to the
duration of the first media segment.
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1-8,10-22 and 24—38 over
Gopalakrishnan and Kovvali
The Examiner finds Gopalakrishnan and Kovvali teach all limitations
of claim 1. Final Act. 5—7. In particular, the Examiner finds Gopalakrishnan
teaches (claim 1)
acquiring the first media segment of said video content,
the first media segment having a certain duration;
after acquiring the first media segment of said video
content, dividing the first media segment of said video content
into a plurality of sub-segments, the plurality of sub-segments
comprising a first sub-segment and a second sub-segment.
Final Act. 5 (citing Gopalakrishnan 1155).
Among other arguments, Appellants present the following principal
argument:
Gopalakrishnan at paragraph 155 merely discloses the
well-known technique of HTTP Adaptive Bit Rate Streaming. As
is well known, in an HTTP Adaptive Bit Rate Streaming system
“video content is split into ‘segments’ or ‘chunks’ of 2—10
3
Appeal 2017-006241
Application 13/812,558
seconds and each segment is delivered in response to a separate
HTTP request.” (Gopalakrishnan at paragraph 155). Thus,
Gopalakrishnan at best teaches Step 1 - - i.e., acquiring the first
media segment of said video content. The similarities between
Gopalakrishnan and the invention of claim 1, however, end here.
Claim 1, does not merely require dividing video content
into “segments” and acquiring the media segments of the video
content. Rather, claim 1 expressly requires dividing an acquired
segment of video content into a plurality of sub-segments.
Specifically, claim 1 recites that “video content is divided into a
plurality of media segments comprising a first media segment
and a second media segment” and further recites "after acquiring
the first media segment of said video content, dividing the first
media segment of said video content into a plurality of sub-
segments.'’'’
App. Br. 8—9; see also Reply Br. 2—7.
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).
Appellants’ arguments persuade us that the Examiner erred in finding
Gopalakrishnan teaches (claim 1) “after acquiring the first media segment of
said video content, dividing the first media segment of said video content
into a plurality of sub-segments, the plurality of sub-segments comprising a
first sub-segment and a second sub-segment.”
Gopalakrishnan (| 155) discloses
Also known as Adaptive Streaming, Dynamic Streaming,
Smooth Streaming and HTTP Live Streaming, HTTP adaptive
bit rate streaming is emerging as the default for delivering video.
Some HTTP based adaptive streaming protocols include
ADOBE HTTP Dynamic Streaming, APPLE HTTP Live
Streaming, and MICROSOFT Internet Information Service (IIS)
Smooth Streaming, a.k.a. “Silverlight.” In HTTP adaptive bit
4
Appeal 2017-006241
Application 13/812,558
rate streaming, video content is split into “segments” or “chunks”
of 2—10 seconds and each segment is delivered in response to a
separate HTTP request. Further, the video segments may also be
encoded at different bit rates enabling the client to request
segments of appropriate quality (bit rate) based on prevailing
network conditions as the video is being played, thus enabling
“adaptation” of playback quality to bandwidth availability. The
segmentation also naturally enables seeking to parts of the video
without having to download the entire video file. Content
protection schemes are also being proposed. HTTP adaptive bit
rate streaming is especially applicable to wireless
communications networks because the capabilities of wireless
communications networks, hand-held wireless devices, and the
quality of wireless connections tend to vary widely.
Thus, Gopalakrishnan (| 155) discloses acquiring a media segment of
video content, and delivering the segment in response to an HTTP request.
Notably, each segment is delivered in response to a separate HTTP request.
There is no further discussion in Gopalakrishnan 1155 of delivery of the
segment. Particularly, we do not readily see any disclosure of a segment
being divided into sub-segments prior to transmission.
Claim 1 ’s language requires video content be divided into “segments”
(Gopalakrishnan’s 2—10 second segments) and further requires a segment be
divided into “sub-segments.” At best, Gopalakrishnan 1155 delivers a series
of 2—10 second segments, without further disclosure of the delivery
technique involving further division of a segment into sub-segments.
The Examiner’s further explanation in the Examiner’s Answer does
not change our analysis. In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner further
explains
In HTTP adaptive media streaming source content is encoded at
multiple bit rates and then each of the streamed are segmented
into small multi-second parts. Examiner would now like to point
to paragraphs [0165], [0166], and [0155] of the Gopalakrishnan
5
Appeal 2017-006241
Application 13/812,558
reference that teaches that in HTTP adaptive bit rate streaming,
video content is split into “segments” or “chunks” of 2—10
seconds and each segment is delivered in response to a separate
HTTP request. Gopalakrishnan in the same paragraphs also
teaches that the content chunks are sent to the client at a flow rate
that is at least partially dependent on the version of the content
element and also that data for a version that is encoded at a higher
bit rate must be sent at a higher flow rate (e.g., in Kbps) than data
for a version that is encoded at a lower bit rate. So
Gopalakrishnan clearly teaches that first and second media
segment are divided into sub-segments of content with duration
of for example two to ten second [sic]. (Gopalakrishnan, see
paragraphs [0165], [0166], and [0155]).
Ans. 20—21.
Again, the Examiner is referring to Gopalakrishnan’s 2—10 second
segments. At best, these segments are the “segments” in claim 1, but
Gopalakrishnan 1155 delivers a series of 2—10 second segments without
further disclosure of the delivery technique involving further division of a
segment into sub-segments. In short, the 2—10 second segments or chunks in
Gopalakrishnan are segments of the video content, but we do not readily see
any further disclosure in Gopalakrishnan involving further division of a
segment into sub-segments.
In reaching our decision, we note that the Examiner does not find
Kovvali teaches (claim 1) “after acquiring the first media segment of said
video content, dividing the first media segment of said video content into a
plurality of sub-segments, the plurality of sub-segments comprising a first
sub-segment and a second sub-segment.” See Final Act. 6—7. This issue is
not before us for review.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, or
of claims 2—8, 10-14, and 29—38, which depend from claim 1.
6
Appeal 2017-006241
Application 13/812,558
Claim 15 recites “dividing the first media segment of the video
content into a plurality of sub-segments, the plurality of sub-segments
comprising a first sub-segment and a second sub-segment, said first media
segment having a certain duration.”
For substantially the same reasons as for claim 1, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15, or of claims 16—22 and 24—28, which
depend from claim 15.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 9 and 23 over Gopalakrishnan,
Kovvali, and Arbel
Claims 9 and 23 depend from claims 1 and 15, respectively.
The Examiner does not find Arbel cures the deficiency of
Gopalakrishnan and Kovvali discussed above when addressing claims 1 and
15. See Final Act. 17—18.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and
23.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—38 is reversed.
REVERSED
7