Ex Parte Jung et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 9, 2018

11434568 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 9, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
11/434,568 05/15/2006 Edward K.Y. Jung
80118 7590 07/11/2018
Constellation Law Group, PLLC
P.O. Box 580
Tracyton, WA 98393
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.
SEl-0487-US 2410
EXAMINER
HOLDER, ANNER N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/11/2018 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):
admin@constellationlaw.com
Ty ler@constellationlaw.com
ISFDocketlnbox@intven.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EDWARD K.Y. JUNG, ROYCE A. LEVIEN,
ROBERT W. LORD, MARK A. MALAMUD, and
JOHN D. RINALDO, JR.
Appeal2018-001272
Application 11/434,568 1
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITT A, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-11, 16, 21, 24--28, 31-34, 52, and 177-187, which are all of the
claims pending in the application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Searete LLC, wholly owned by Intellectual Ventures
Management, LLC, as the real party in interest. See Br. 4.
2 Claims 12-15, 17-20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 35-51, and 53-176 have been
cancelled.
Appeal2018-001272
Application 11/434,568
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to retaining portions
of a video data stream at different resolutions. Spec. 16, Abstract. 3 Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system, comprising:
circuitry for retaining a data stream, wherein the data
stream includes at least one of video data or audio data;
circuitry for accepting input for designation of a first
portion of the retained data stream for transmission at a first
resolution;
circuitry for accepting input for designation of a second
portion of the retained data stream for transmission at a second
resolution if at least one bandwidth parameter is met;
circuitry for detecting at least one bandwidth for
distribution of the retained data stream via at least one network
connection; and
circuitry for transmitting at least one of the first portion of
the retained data stream or the second portion of the retained data
stream via the at least one network connection at least partially
based on the detected at least one bandwidth for distribution of
the retained data stream.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 6-11, 16, 21, 25, 26, 31-34, and 177-187 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Swanson
3 This Decision refers to: (1) Appellants' Specification filed May 15, 2006
(Spec.); (2) the Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed February 16, 2017;
(3) the Appeal Brief (Br.) filed May 16, 2017; and (4) the Examiner's
Answer (Ans.) mailed September 7, 2017.
2
Appeal2018-001272
Application 11/434,568
(US 5,689,442; issued Nov. 18, 1997) and Krikorian (US 7,647,614 B2;
issued Jan. 12, 2010). Final Act. 5-12.
Claims 24 and 52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Swanson, Krikorian, and Venetian er (US 2007/0013 77 6
Al; published Jan. 18, 2007). Id. at 12-13.
Claims 2-5, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Swanson, Krikorian, and Feldis (US 2003/0007078
Al; published Jan. 9, 2003). Id. at 14--17.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
the issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made are waived. See
MPEP § 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) and 4I.39(a)(l).
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 1. 178. and 179
"transmitting ... the retained data stream "
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Krikorian teaches
"transmitting at least one of the first portion of the retained data stream or
the second portion of the retained data stream ... based on the detected at
least one bandwidth," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims
178 and 179. Br. 12-19, 63---65. Specifically, Appellants argue because "the
technology of Krikorian is designed to operate on live, non-stored data, there
is no disclosure of 'retaining a data stream,' and therefore there is also no
subsequent 'transmitting the retained data stream."' Id. at 18.
We are not persuaded because we agree with the Examiner's finding
that Swanson teaches "transmitting at least one of the first portion of the
retained data stream or the second portion of the retained data stream."
3
Appeal2018-001272
Application 11/434,568
Final Act. 5---6. In particular, the Examiner relies (id.) on Swanson's video
system having an imaging sensor 12 capturing images "specifie[d] ... in
terms of resolution" (Swanson 5:60---62) and "outputting signals representing
the [ captured images] in either an analog or digital information format" (id.
3:62--4:13), i.e., Swanson's system captures a video "data stream" at a
specific resolution. That captured data stream is "retained" by the data
stream's "storage in the data storage device 18." Id. Fig. 3, 6:15-57, 9:8-11
("In operation, the images 28 and sounds 36 acquired by the sensors 12
and 14 will be recorded in the data storage device 18."). Furthermore, as the
Examiner points out (Final Act. 5---6), Swanson transmits portions of its data
stream during an important event by "direct[ing] [imaging] sensors 12 and
14 to acquire certain information ... for real time review using a data
transmission" and "[a]t the same time ... continu[ing] to store other images
and sounds in the data storage device 18 for subsequent review after the
event of interest is over." Swanson 10:9-19. As such, Appellants' argument
that Krikorian does not teach a retained data stream that is transmitted
(Br. 18), does not address the Examiner's finding that Swanson teaches a
retained data stream that is transmitted (Final Act. 5---6).
Moreover, we also disagree with Appellants' argument that Krikorian
does not teach, or "teaches away," from a "retained data stream." Br. 14--15,
18. The Examiner points out that Krikorian "use[ s] ... stored/buffered data
for transmission of a video data stream." Final Act. 3; Ans. 17. Indeed,
Krikorian' s "personal broadcaster 100" that transmits a media data stream
"include[s] memory 330" that is "used as a buffer for the outgoing media
stream." Krikorian 7:56---60. The claims only require the data stream is
"retained" and do not limit how that data stream is retained. As such,
4
Appeal2018-001272
Application 11/434,568
Krikorian's memory, retaining the outgoing media stream in a buffer,
teaches "transmitting ... the retained data stream." Nor have Appellants
persuaded us Krikorian' s teaching of the disputed limitation criticizes,
discredits, or otherwise discourages use of that technique. Thus, it follows
that Appellants have not persuaded us Krikorian "teaches away" from the
limitation.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "Krikorian
does not disclose that a decision on which of two portions of stored data to
transmit is made" (id. at 18) because that argument is not commensurate
with the scope of the claims. Initially, in reviewing the portions of the
Specification Appellants cite in support of the limitation (id. at 6-7 ( citing
Spec. 13, 19)), we see nothing that requires such a transmission "decision."
Rather, the Specification discloses "accepting input" on the "analysis of a
data stream ... that satisfies certain conditions and/or parameters" - it
discusses "input" but is not directed to data transmission. Spec. 13. In the
portion of the Specification directed to data transmission, the Specification
discloses "transmitting ... data aspects being defined in part ... by
exemplary parameters such as ... a frequency and/or wavelength parameter
[that] may be associated with one or more bandwidth parameters." Spec. 19.
The transmission is "defined" based on bandwidth, but is the Specification
does not describe any "decision" of which portion of a data stream is
transmitted based on bandwidth.
Moreover, the claims do not recite making a "decision" on which
portions of data to transmit. Instead, the claims recite "transmitting at least
one of the first portion of the retained data stream or the second portion of
the retained data stream ... based on the detected at least one bandwidth for
5
Appeal2018-001272
Application 11/434,568
distribution of the retained data stream" ( emphasis added). Based on the
recited disjunctive language and in light of the Specification, the claim only
requires a transmission of either a first or a second portion of a data stream
where the transmission is based on, i.e., defined by, the detected bandwidth.
We agree with the Examiner's finding that the combination of
Swanson and Krikorian teaches the transmission of either a first or a second
portion of a data stream, where the transmission is based on the detected
bandwidth. Final Act. 6. As discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner's
finding that Swanson discloses the transmission of first and second portions
of a retained data stream. Id. at 5---6. We further agree with the Examiner's
finding that Krikorian teaches "transmitting ... the retained data stream ...
based on the detected at least one bandwidth." Id. at 6. Specifically,
Krikorian "dynamically adjust[s] ... resolution ... depending on ...
available network bandwidth" for transmission over a network. Krikorian
7:61-8:22. The Examiner combines Swanson, teaching the transmission of
portions of a data stream, with Krikorian, teaching the transmission of a data
stream based on bandwidth, to teach "transmitting at least one of the first
portion of the retained data stream or the second portion of the retained data
stream ... based on the detected at least one bandwidth," within the
meaning of the claims.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Swanson and Krikorian teaches "transmitting at least one of
the first portion of the retained data stream or the second portion of the
retained data stream ... based on the detected at least one bandwidth," as
recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 178 and 179.
6
Appeal2018-001272
Application 11/434,568
Improper Combination
Appellants further contend the Examiner improperly combined
Swanson and Krikorian. Br. 66-71. Specifically, Appellants argue the
Examiner "has cited 'improved data receiving, transmission, and the user's
experience' as improvements that might be present in the proposed
combination," but the claims are "silent as to 'data receiving' and as to 'the
user's experience."' Id. at 68. Appellants further argue the Examiner "has
provided no explanation as to why an improvement in 'data receiving' or
'the user's experience' ... would motivate a skilled artisan to combine them
to arrive at a claimed invention which is silent as to the cited functionality."
Id. at 69.
Appellants' argument that the claims do not recite the Examiner's
stated motivation, i.e., improving data transmission and user experience
(Br. 68), does not persuade us the Examiner erred in finding a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine Swanson and
Krikorian. That the claims do not recite the Examiner's stated motivation is
not dispositive. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007)
("In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious,
neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee
controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim
extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under§ 103."). Here, the Examiner
has provided "articulated reasoning" having "some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness." See id. at 417-18. In
particular, the Examiner combines Swanson and Krikorian to "improve[]
data receiving, transmission, and the user's experience." Final Act. 6.
Indeed, Krikorian teaches techniques to improve data transmission and user
7
Appeal2018-001272
Application 11/434,568
experience and the Examiner's rationale comes from Krikorian itself.
Krikorian 1: 61---63 ("network bandwidth ... limitations have made it
difficult to provide an effective and enjoyable remote media experience for
the user"), 11 :63-12: 18 ("optimizing[ing] the experience for the user" based
on "the throughput of the connection" to "stream[] at a rate compatible with
[the] throughput" by "choosing the proper resolution setting"), 23:5-8 ("the
encoder in the media broadcaster can dynamically adjust these parameters to
adapt to the changing network characteristics and optimize use of system
resources. This allows for improved performance .... "). Moreover, the
Examiner's combination uses data transmission techniques taught by
Krikorian to improve Swanson's data transmission device. Where "a
technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "there is no
explanation or rationale present explaining how the combination of the two
references is supposed to work or why there would be a reasonable
expectation of success in combining them." Br. 70. As to the first point
(how the combination is supposed to work), the Examiner explains the
teachings of each reference that are relied upon to make the rejection, which,
together with the rationale to combine is sufficient to establish obviousness.
Final Act. 5---6. As to the second point (reasonable expectation of success),
the Supreme Court has stated that "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton," and "in many cases ... will
be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a
puzzle." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. Here, Appellants do not present
8
Appeal2018-001272
Application 11/434,568
evidence demonstrating that the combination of Swanson and Krikorian
would have been beyond the reach of the skilled artisan. In re Pearson, 494
F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) ("Attorney's argument in a brief cannot take
the place of evidence."). We find no persuasive evidence of record showing
that it would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary
skill in the art" to combine Swanson and Krikorian and incorporate
Krikorian's improved data transmission technique with a reasonable
expectation of success. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in concluding
claims 1, 178, and 179 would have been obvious over the combination of
Swanson and Krikorian. We, therefore, sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claims 1, 178, and 179.
Dependent Claims 25 and 26
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Swanson teaches "a
first-portion frequency range characteristic," as recited in claim 25 and 26.
Br. 19-27. Specifically, Appellants argue "the word 'frequency' is used
with respect to video or audio" but "Swanson refers to 'frequency[]' [to]
mean[] a station to which to tune a radio, or a number of times a second to
capture a sample." Id. at 22.
We are not persuaded. Even under Appellants' proffered
interpretation that "'frequency"' is used with respect to video or audio" (id.),
we find Swanson teaches the disputed limitation because the frequency
Swanson teaches is with respect to video (Swanson, 5:60-63). Appellants
highlight Swanson's "frequency of capture" (Br. 22); Swanson describes
9
Appeal2018-001272
Application 11/434,568
that "with respect to the operation of imaging sensor 12, the mode control
functionality specifies operation in terms of ... frequency of capture (frame
rate)" (Swanson 5:60-63). The frame rate, i.e., frequency of capture,
Swanson describes is with respect to video because the frame rate defines
the number of images in the video sequence. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Swanson teaches "a first-portion
frequency range characteristic," within the meaning of claims 25 and 26.
Dependent Claim 32
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Krikorian teaches
"accepting input for designation of playback of the second portion of the
retained data stream at the second resolution responsive to at least one
change in bandwidth of at least one network connection associated with
distribution of the retained data stream," as recited in claim 32. Br. 27-32.
Specifically, Appellants argue "there is no teaching in Krikorian of retaining
the data stream, nor designating a second portion of the data stream, nor
playing back the second portion of the data stream responsive to a change in
bandwidth during distribution of the retained data stream." Id. at 32.
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, we agree with the
Examiner that Swanson teaches transmission of a first and second portion of
retained data and that Krikorian teaches transmission of retained data based
on bandwidth. Final Act. 5---6 ( citations omitted). The Examiner further
relies on (Final Act. 8) Krikorian to teach a client that receives and plays
back the transmitted data (Krikorian 8:20-22, 12:9-18; see Krikorian 3:2-7
(a "media player client plays the received media stream from the buffer")).
The Examiner concludes the claim would have been obvious based on the
10
Appeal2018-001272
Application 11/434,568
combination of the teachings of Swanson and Krikorian. See Final Act. 6, 8.
Appellants' arguments addressing Krikorian do not persuasively address that
combination. Br. 32. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in concluding the combination of Swanson and Krikorian teaches
"accepting input for designation of playback of the second portion of the
retained data stream at the second resolution responsive to at least one
change in bandwidth of at least one network connection associated with
distribution of the retained data stream," as recited in claim 32.
Dependent Claim 177
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Swanson teaches
"transmitting ... the retained data stream ... from at least one fog server via
at least one network connection to at least one playback device," as recited
in claim 177. Br. 33-37. Specifically, Appellants argue Swanson's
"downloading of recorded information from the data storage device," does
not teach transmitting ''from at least one fog server via at least one network
connection to at least one playback device." Id. at 36-37.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds Swanson "transmit[s] ...
stored/buffered data from a server/storage device." Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 18.
For example, Swanson's control processor 10 uses "a transceiver 70 for
facilitating remote communications" so "the images and sounds of [an]
event may be transmitted to a remote location" for "real time review"
Swanson 9:59---65, 10:9-16. The claim does not define a "fog server."
Further, the Specification provides no definition of a "fog server." In fact,
11
Appeal2018-001272
Application 11/434,568
the Specification does not even use the term "fog server."4 Appellants do
not provide any elaboration or persuasively explain why Swanson's video
transmission from its control processor to a remote location for viewing does
not teach transmission from a fog server to playback device. See Br. 36.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Swanson
teaches "transmitting ... the retained data stream ... from at least one fog
server via at least one network connection to at least one playback device,"
as recited in claim 1 77.
Dependent Claim 180
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Krikorian teaches
"storing at least one media content for transmission," as recited in claim 180.
Br. 37--42. Appellants argue Krikorian's personal broadcaster transmits "a
constructed media stream, not a stored one." Id. at 42.
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, we agree with the
Examiner that Swanson teaches transmission of a stored data stream and that
Krikorian also teaches transmission of a stored data stream. Final Act. 5-6
( citations omitted). In particular, contrary to Appellants' argument that
Krikorian does not teach stored media content (Br. 42), Krikorian discloses
that its "personal broadcaster 100 may include memory 330," which "may
also be used as a buffer for the outgoing media stream." Krikorian 7:56-60.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
4 Neither the originally filed claims nor the Specification recite a "fog
server." In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to
review claim 177 for compliance with the written description requirement of
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
12
Appeal2018-001272
Application 11/434,568
combination of Swanson and Krikorian teaches "storing at least one media
content for transmission," as recited in claim 180.
Dependent Claim 181
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Krikorian teaches
"storing a second instance of the retained data stream at the second
resolution," as recited in claim 181. Br. 42--47. Specifically, Appellants
argue "there is no disclosure of storing a first instance and a second instance
of the data stream" and "[ o ]nly one resolution is even suggested by
Krikorian: the resolution at which the media player received the data
stream." Id. at 4 7.
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, we agree with the
Examiner that Swanson teaches transmission of a first and second portion of
a retained video data stream captured at a specified resolution. Final Act. 5-
6 ( citations omitted). Further, we agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 4;
Ans. 19) that Krikorian "stor[es]/buffer[s] content for transmission at
varying resolutions" (Krikorian 7:56-60 (memory ... used as a buffer for
the outgoing media stream"), 7:61-8:22 ("dynamically adjusting ...
resolution" of the media stream), thus, teaching storing of multiple data
stream resolutions. The Examiner concludes the claim would have been
obvious based on the combination of Swanson, teaching retained portions of
video data captured at a specific resolution, and Krikorian, teaching
multiple, dynamic resolutions. See Final Act. 6, 9-10. Appellants'
argument (Br. 4 7) does not persuade us that the Examiner erred in finding
the combination of Swanson and Krikorian teaches "storing a second
13
Appeal2018-001272
Application 11/434,568
instance of the retained data stream at the second resolution," as recited in
claim 181.
Dependent Claim 183
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Krikorian teaches
"determining at least one data stream to distribute depending on the at least
one bandwidth, including at least determining at least one of the first portion
of the retained data stream or the second portion of the retained data stream
to distribute depending on the at least one bandwidth," as recited in claim
183. Br. 48-53. Specifically, Appellants argue "Krikorian does not disclose
that the personal broadcaster stores any data at all." Id. at 51. Appellants
further argue "Krikorian teaches that in the preferred embodiment access to
the personal broadcaster is limited to a single session" but in "the claimed
invention ... more than one session could be easily supported which is
certainly advantageous." Id. at 52.
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, we agree with the
Examiner that Swanson teaches a first and second portion of retained data
and that Krikorian teaches retained data in its personal broadcaster. Final
Act. 5-6 ( citations omitted). Furthermore, even assuming, arguendo, that
Krikorian encodes its data stream "on the fly" and is "limited to a single
session" (Br. 52), the claim does not require more than a single session or
preclude "on the fly" encoding. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Swanson and Krikorian
teaches "determining at least one data stream to distribute depending on the
at least one bandwidth, including at least determining at least one of the first
portion of the retained data stream or the second portion of the retained data
14
Appeal2018-001272
Application 11/434,568
stream to distribute depending on the at least one bandwidth," as recited in
claim 183.
Dependent Claim 185
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Krikorian teaches
"determining at least one data stream to distribute depending on the at least
one bandwidth, including at least determining at least one of the first portion
of the retained data stream or the second portion of the retained data stream
to distribute depending on the at least one bandwidth," as recited in claim
185. Br. 53-57. Referring to arguments Appellants previously presented
regarding claim 1, Appellants argue "Krikorian does not disclose that a
decision on which of two portions of stored data to transmit is made." Id. at
57.
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, the claim does not recite
making a "decision on which of two portions of stored data to transmit" and
the Specification does not support such a reading of the limitation. Instead,
the claim only requires a transmission of either a first or a second portion of
the data stream where the transmission is based on the detected bandwidth.
As discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the
combination of Swanson and Krikorian teaches a transmission of either a
first or a second portion of the data stream where the transmission is based
on the detected bandwidth. Final Act. 5-6. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Swanson and
Krikorian teaches "determining at least one data stream to distribute
depending on the at least one bandwidth, including at least determining at
least one of the first portion of the retained data stream or the second portion
15
Appeal2018-001272
Application 11/434,568
of the retained data stream to distribute depending on the at least one
bandwidth," as recited in claim 185.
Dependent Claim 18 7
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Krikorian teaches
"switching distribution of the retained data stream to a portion of the
retained data stream designated for transmission at a different resolution," as
recited in claim 187. Br. 58-62. Specifically, Appellants argue "the
references, either individually or combined, do not show that there are data
streams retained at different resolutions and that a selection of a retained
data stream for transmission at a particular resolution is made such that the
transmission occurs without dynamically generating a stream at a particular
resolution." Id. at 62. Appellants further argue that, because "the claimed
invention does not have to transcode or transrate in conjunction with
transmitting the stream, ... more than one session could be easily supported
which is certainly advantageous." Id.
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, we agree with the
Examiner that Swanson teaches transmission of a first and second portion of
retained data and that Krikorian teaches dynamically transmitting retained
data at different resolutions. Final Act. 5---6 ( citations omitted). The
Examiner concludes the claim would have been obvious based on the
combination of the teachings of Swanson and Krikorian. See Final Act. 6,
12. Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the
claim because the claim does not preclude "dynamically generating a
stream" or require "that more than one session could be easily supported."
Br. 62. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
16
Appeal2018-001272
Application 11/434,568
combination of Swanson and Krikorian teach "switching distribution of the
retained data stream to a portion of the retained data stream designated for
transmission at a different resolution," as recited in claim 187.
Remaining Claims
Appellants do not argue separate patentability for dependent claims 2-
11, 16, 21, 24, 27, 28, 31, 33, 34, 52, 182, 184, and 186, which depend
directly or indirectly from claim 1. See Br. 62---63. Accordingly, for the
reasons set forth above, we sustain the Examiner's decision to reject claims
2-11, 16,21,24,27,28,31,33,34,52, 182, 184,and 186.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-11, 16, 21, 24--28, 31-34, 52, and 177-187.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
17