10491057 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Apr. 30, 2010)

Ex Parte Garrec et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesApr 30, 2010

10491057 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Apr. 30, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES __________ Ex parte DAVID GARREC, AMOR BENALI, and FABIENNE LEFEVRE __________ Appeal 2009-006622 Application 10/491,057 Technology Center 2400 __________ Decided: April 30, 2010 __________ Before LEE E. BARRETT, STEPHEN C. SIU, and DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. SIU, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2009-006622 Application 10/491,057 2 Invention The invention relates to transmission of an Internet Protocol (IP) multicast service over a broadcast channel (Spec. 1, ll. 5-6). This technology does not enable all possible sessions to be broadcast, conditioning the offer of multicast services over the broadcast transmitter network upon the number of users successfully registering for the multicast session (Spec. 5, ll. 26-30). Independent claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method of providing an Internet Protocol multicast service comprising transmitting multicast data through multicast routers to user stations over a digital broadcast channel together with digital broadcast signals, at least if a request has been received from a user station for the multicast data, wherein the transmission of said multicast data by said multicast routers is conditional upon the reception of said request for said multicast data at said multicast routers from a plurality of said user stations. References The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in support of the rejection: Kostreski US 6,130,898 Oct. 10, 2000 Buchsbaum US 7,161,934 B2 Jan. 9, 2007 (filed Mar. 21, 2001) Appeal 2009-006622 Application 10/491,057 3 Rejection Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kostreski and Buchsbaum. ISSUE The Examiner finds that Buchsbaum teaches that “the transmission of the multicast data is conditional upon receipt of the request from the client” (Ans. 14). Appellants argue that “in Buchsbaum, a request from a single client is sufficient for the server to provide IP multicast data, whereas Applicants’ multicast router transmits multicast data on a condition that the multicast router receives requests for multicast data from a plurality of user stations” (App. Br. 6). Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Buchsbaum and Kostreski would have taught or suggested transmission conditional upon or selectively responsive to receipt of a request for the multicast data from a plurality of user stations? FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. 1. Buchsbaum teaches “a method of performing IP multicast communication . . . comprising . . . (a) at least one client requesting the IP multicast . . . and (b) transmitting the IP multicast Appeal 2009-006622 Application 10/491,057 4 communication generated . . . to at least one destination” (col. 2, ll. 53-59). 2. Buchsbaum teaches that “upstream network 1 generates an IP multicast transmission to a plurality of downstream networks . . . where each of the downstream networks . . . includes a plurality of clients . . . . The IP multicast transmission is requested by at least one client” (col. 4, ll. 55-61). 3. Buchsbaum teaches that “when a client (e.g., 32a1) on the downstream network 3a requests a live video stream . . . the request is transmitted . . . . Upon receiving the request, the server provides the media . . . data to the client (e.g., 32a1)” (col. 5, ll. 47- 52). 4. Buchsbaum teaches that “[i]f a second client (e.g., 32an) on downstream network-3a requests the same live video, the request is transmitted . . . However, the second client (e.g., 32an) is served with the same live media stream that is being delivered to the first client (e.g., 32a1)” (col. 5, ll. 55-60). 5. Buchsbaum teaches that “if there is no client listening to a specific stream, then the stream can be turned off for a given destination” (col. 7, ll. 14-15). Appeal 2009-006622 Application 10/491,057 5 PRINCIPLES OF LAW Claim interpretation “In the patentability context, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretations. . . . [L]imitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). A claim meaning is reasonable if one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim, read in light of the specification, to encompass the meaning. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Obviousness The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and (3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17- 18 (1966). ANALYSIS Appellants challenge the Examiner’s finding that Buchsbaum teaches selective transmission of multicast data. At multiple points, Buchsbaum makes clear that transmission begins when only a single request is received (FF 1-3). These are transmissions of multicast data because a request by a second client is served by the same transmission stream (FF 4). Buchsbaum’s only disclosure of conditional transmission relates to shutting off a stream when no client is listening Appeal 2009-006622 Application 10/491,057 6 (FF 5). Because Buchsbaum’s transmission begins with a request by a single client (FF 1-3) and continues when at least one client is listening (FF 5), Buchsbaum would not have taught or suggested transmission conditional upon or selectively responsive to receipt of a request for the multicast data from a plurality of (at least two) user stations. Further, the Examiner has not shown that Kostreski, not relied upon for this claim limitation, cures the deficiencies of Buchsbaum. For at least these reasons, and since independent claims 10 and 12 contain similar language, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 10, and 12, and claims 2-9, 11, and 13-16 which depend therefrom. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner erred in finding that Buchsbaum and Kostreski would have taught or suggested transmission conditional upon or selectively responsive to receipt of a request for the multicast data from a plurality of user stations. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED Appeal 2009-006622 Application 10/491,057 7 msc MOTOROLA, INC. 1303 EAST ALGONQUIN ROAD IL01/3RD SCHAUMBURG IL 60196