Ex Parte Kalipatnapu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 12, 2017

13629216 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 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.
13/629,216 09/27/2012 Rajah K.V.R. Kalipatnapu 062891.3862 3243
86846 7590 07/14/2017
Baker Botts L.L.P./Cisco Systems
2001 Ross Avenue
SUITE 700
Dallas, TX 75201
EXAMINER
BROWN, CHRISTOPHER J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2017 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):
PTOmaill @bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAJAH K.V.R. KALIPATNAPU, RAJESH VELLIYATT,
KRUTARTH M. SHAH, MURTHY V. ATMAKURI,
and KHOA T. TRAN
Appeal 2017-001321
Application No. 13/629,2161
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MARC S. HOFF, and SCOTT B. HOWARD,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 27—52.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appellants’ invention is a system for optimizing bandwidth during a
video conference. A plurality of multipoint conference units (MCUs)
1 The real party in interest is Cisco Technology, Inc.
2 The non-statutory double patenting rejection of claims 27—52 is considered
to have been overcome by the Terminal Disclaimer filed June 11, 2015 and
approved August 18, 2015.
Appeal 2017-001321
Application No. 13/629,216
facilitates video conferences between two or more participants, and are also
able to facilitate cascaded video conferences comprising participants
managed by two or more of the MCUs. A plurality of endpoints participate
in a video conference. Each endpoint is able to establish a conference link
with a selected one of the MCUs, to generate a plurality of video streams
and a corresponding plurality of audio streams, to transmit the generated
video streams and the generated audio streams on the conference link, to
receive a plurality of video streams and audio streams, to present the
received audio streams using a plurality of speakers, and to display the
received video streams using a plurality of monitors. See Spec. 3.
Claim 27 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
27. A system for optimizing bandwidth during a video
conference comprising:
a plurality of multipoint conference units (MCUs) each
operable to facilitate video conferences between two or more
participants, the MCUs further operable to facilitate cascaded
video conferences comprising participants managed by two or
more of the MCUs;
a plurality of endpoints participating in a video
conference, each endpoint operable to establish a conference link
with a selected one of the MCUs, to generate a plurality of video
streams and a corresponding plurality of audio streams, to
transmit the generated video streams and the generated audio
streams on the conference link, to receive a plurality of separate
spatially consistent video streams and a plurality of audio
streams, to present the received audio streams using a plurality
of speakers, and to display the received video streams using a
plurality of monitors;
a controlled MCU of the MCUs managing a first set of the
endpoints, the controlled MCU operable:
to receive a first set of available video streams
comprising the generated video streams from each of the
first set of endpoints;
2
Appeal 2017-001321
Application No. 13/629,216
to select X potential video streams out of the first
set of available video streams, wherein X is less than or
equal to N and N is the maximum number of active video
streams that any endpoint is able to display concurrently;
and
to transmit the X potential video streams to a master
MCU of the MCUs; and the master MCU managing a
second set of the endpoints, the master MCU operable:
to receive a second set of available video streams
comprising the generated video streams from each of the
second set of endpoints and the potential video streams
from the controlled MCU;
to select active video streams out of the second set
of available video streams, the active video streams
comprising Y primary video streams and M alternate
video streams, wherein Y is less than or equal to N;
to determine required ones of the active video
streams for delivery to one or more of the first set of the
endpoints; and
to transmit the required ones of the active video
streams to the controlled MCU.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Eshel US 2006/0223120 A1 Oct. 19, 2006
Shaffer US 6,775,247 B1 Aug.10,2004
Yim US 2007/0285501 A1 Dec. 13, 2007
Claims 27—35 and 37—52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yim and Shaffer.
Claim 36 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yim, Shaffer, and Eshel.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed Nov. 19, 2015), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Oct.
3
Appeal 2017-001321
Application No. 13/629,216
28, 2016), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Aug. 29, 2016) for
their respective details.
ISSUE
Does the combination of Yim and Shaffer teach or fairly suggest a
plurality of endpoints operable to receive a plurality of separate spatially
consistent video streams?
ANALYSIS
The independent claims under appeal (27, 37, 42, 47, and 52) recite,
inter alia, that each of the “plurality of endpoints” is operable “to receive a
plurality of separate spatially consistent video streams” and “to display the
received video streams using a plurality of monitors.”
Appellants argue that Yim teaches that “[ajudio and video information
received by the master server is combined into a composite audio and video
stream for the outside client and the cluster node server.” App. Br. 14, citing
Yim 17 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner responds that Yim teaches that
multiple video streams are created and transmitted from a plurality of
transmitting clients. Ans. 2, citing Yim H 35, 36. “Yim teaches that despite
combination for transmission, that these created separate video streams are
received by a second plurality of receiving client devices. They are viewed
and heard spatially and consistently separate.” Ans. 2. “Yim also teaches
that one of the multiple video streams may be selected to be the primary
window feed displayed above the other video streams.” Ans. 3, citing Yim |
33.
We disagree with the Examiner, and agree with Appellants that Yim
fails to teach a plurality of “endpoints,” which “represent
telecommunications equipment that supports participation in video
4
Appeal 2017-001321
Application No. 13/629,216
conferences” and “may include any suitable video conferencing equipment”
(Spec. 6—7), that are operable to receive a plurality of separate spatially
consistent video streams.
We find that Yim teaches “outside clients,” who receive audio and
video from a master node server, and “cluster node clients,” who receive
audio and video from a cluster node server. Yim 17.
Audio and video information received by the master server is
combined into a composite audio and video stream for the
outside client and the cluster node server .... Finally, the
composite audio and video stream received by the cluster node
server is transmitted to the cluster node clients.
Id.
The master server 102 combines the audio/video streams
received from outside clients 104 and cluster node servers 122
into a composite audio/video stream. In one embodiment, the
videos are downsampled and combined to form a composite
image .... In one embodiment, the composite audio/video
stream is customized for each outside client and cluster node
server in accordance with their preferences and commands.
Yim 136.
Yim, thus, teaches that both outside clients and cluster node clients,
which correspond to the “endpoints” recited in Appellants’ claims, receive a
composite audio and video stream (singular) from the master server, in
which the (plurality of) videos transmitted to the master server are
downsampled and combined to form a composite image (singular). In one
embodiment, the composite stream (singular) is customized for each outside
client and cluster node server. Such customization does not alter the fact that
a single, composite stream is received by outside clients and (ultimately)
cluster node clients.
5
Appeal 2017-001321
Application No. 13/629,216
The Examiner’s finding that Yim teaches “separate created video
streams . . . received by a second plurality of receiving client devices,” such
separate streams being “viewed and heard spatially and consistently
separate,” is erroneous. See Ans. 2. The Examiner has not identified any
portion of Yim in support of these findings. As stated supra, we find that
Yim teaches that clients receive only a single video stream.
The Examiner points out that the independent claims recite endpoints
operable to receive multiple video streams, and asserts that this language
means that the endpoints need only “have the capability of performing the
act of receiving.” Ans. 3. The Examiner does not identify any teaching in
Yim, however, tending to show that Yim’s outside clients or cluster node
clients have the capability to receive a plurality of separate spatially
consistent video streams. In contrast, we agree with Appellants that Yim
teaches outside clients 104 and cluster node clients 130 receiving a single
audio/video stream. See Yim 136.
We find that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 27,
37, 42, 47, and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yim
and Shaffer. We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of those claims, as
well as dependent claims 28—35, 38-41, 43—46, and 48—51.
Claim 36
Claim 36 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yim, Shaffer, and Eshel. Final Act. 9. Appellants make no
argument in the Appeal Brief in favor of the patentability of claim 3 6.3
Appellants argue generally that the rejection of claims 27-52 is in error in
3 In contrast, Appellants state that “the Examiner’s rejections of Claims 27-
35 and 37-52 are improper and the Board should reverse them.” App. Br. 12.
6
Appeal 2017-001321
Application No. 13/629,216
the Reply Brief, but make no remarks concerning claim 36 specifically. See
Reply Br. 1,2.
Because Appellants present no argument whatever concerning the
rejection of claim 36, we sustain pro forma the Examiner’s § 103(a)
rejection of claim 36 over Yim, Shaffer, and Eshel.
CONCLUSION
The combination of Yim and Shaffer does not teach or fairly suggest a
plurality of endpoints operable to receive a plurality of separate spatially
consistent video streams.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 27—35 and 37—52 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
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-IN-PART
7