Ex Parte Munsell et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 201611828605 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111828,605 07/26/2007 20991 7590 03/31/2016 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. PA TENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION CA I LAI I Al09 2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Michael R. Munsell 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. PD-207048 9612 EXAMINER TORRES, JOSEPH D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2112 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL R. MUNSELL and JAMES A. MICHENER Appeal2014-008196 Application 11/828,605 Technology Center 2100 Before MARC S. HOFF, BRETT C. MARTIN, 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, 3-9, 11-15, and 17-23. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1, 3, 12-15, 17, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Sugaya (US 6,324,667 Bl; Nov. 27, 2001), Graves et al. (US 5,410,344; Apr. 25, 1995), and Sako et al. (US 4,788,685; Nov. 29, 1998). Final Act. 4--14. Appeal2014-008196 Application 11/828,605 Claims 4--7, 9, 18-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Sugaya, Graves, Sako, and Seifert, Jr. et al. (US 3,866, 175; Feb. 11, 1975). Final Act. 14--16. Claims 8, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Sugaya, Graves, Sako, Seifert, Jr., and Ort (US 5,784,527; July 21, 1998). Final Act. 16-17. We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to "formatting a content file with specific data portion for transmission through a communication network or satellite and using a cyclic redundancy check." Spec. i-f 1. 1. A method comprising: dividing a content file into a plurality of content file packets, each packet having a plurality of bytes therein, said content file having a material identification corresponding to a unique identifier for the content file associated therewith; forming a leading data portion comprising the material identification; determining a cyclic redundancy check value using each of the plurality of bytes of each of the plurality of the content file packets of the content file; forming a trailing data portion with the cyclic redundancy check value therein; forming a content data stream from the leading data portion, each of the plurality of content file packets for the content file and the trailing data portion; and 2 Appeal2014-008196 Application 11/828,605 communicating the content data stream to a user device. ANALYSIS THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 3, 12-15, 17, AND 23 OVER SUGAY A, GRAYES, AND SAKO The Examiner finds that Sugaya, Graves, and Sako teach all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 4--8. Appellants present the following principal arguments: 1. The Examiner fails to recognize, however, that Sugaya is silent as to dividing a packet or file into a plurality of different portions. Sugaya merely describes what the example packets of FIGs. 5 and 7 include without regard to dividing the packets in anyway. Suga ya therefore does not teach dividing a content file into a plurality of content file packets, each packet having a plurality of bytes therein, said content file having a material identification corresponding to a unique identifier for the content file associated therewith, as in claim 1. App. Br. 7-8; see also Reply Br. 2-3. 11. Sugaya states that "the CRC in the eighth symbol packet S[1s] may be a CRC which is generated by including not only the transmission data after the second symbol packet S 12, but the data in the first symbol packet S11 (header information and the like)." See Sugaya, column 6, lines 50-54. Thus, the CRC of Sugaya is generated based on the transmission data after the second symbol packet S 12 and the data in the first symbol packet S 11. However, Sugaya is silent as to a CRC value generated based on each of a plurality of packets resulting from the division of a file into packets. Sako generally states that "a 4-byte CRC code for detecting errors is produced and added at the end of the 3 Appeal2014-008196 Application 11/828,605 preceding 524-bytes of data." See Sako, column 4, lines 9-11. However, Sako is silent as to the CRC code being generated based on each of a plurality of packets resulting from the division of a file into packets. Graves does not even include the words CRC, cyclical, redundancy, or check. App. Br. 7-8; see also Reply Br. 3--4. The Examiner persuades us that Sugaya, Graves, and Sako teach all limitations of claim 1. Regarding argument i, the Examiner finds Sugaya's symbol packets (S11-S1s) shown in Figure 7 teach dividing a content file into a plurality of content file packets. Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 3. We agree and adopt the Examiner's finding as our own. We do not agree with Appellants' argument that Suga ya is silent as to dividing; contrary to Appellants' argument, Sugaya's content in Figure 7 (symbol packets (S11-S1s), collectively) is divided into separate symbols or symbol packets (S11-S1s). Regarding argument ii, the Examiner finds Sugaya's CRC value in symbol packet S 1s shown in Figure 7 teaches determining a CRC value. Final Act. 4--5; see also Ans. 4. The Examiner finds Sako's data portion shown in Figure 5 teaches determining a CRC value using a plurality of bytes. Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 4. We agree and adopt the Examiner's finding as our own. We do not agree with Appellants' argument that Suga ya, Sato, and Graves are silent as to a CRC value generated based on each of a plurality of packets resulting from the division of a file into packets. As explained above with respect to argument i, Sugaya teaches dividing a content file into a plurality of content file packets. Sugaya also teaches a CRC value in symbol packet Sis shown in Figure 7, which is based on each of the header and data bits of each of the symbol packets (S11-S1s). See 4 Appeal2014-008196 Application 11/828,605 Sugaya, col. 6, 11. 50-54. Put another way, the CRC value is determined based on the symbol packets and then appended to the last symbol packet. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 3, 12-15, 17, and 23, which are not separately argued with particularity. See App. Br. 8-9. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 4--7, 9, 18-20, AND 22 OVER SUGAYA, GRAVES, SAKO, AND SEIFERT, JR. Appellants do not argue claims 4--7, 9, 18-20, and 22 with particularity. See App. Br. 10. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4--7, 9, 18- 20, and 22 for reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 8, 11, AND 21 OVER SUGA YA, GRAVES, SAKO, SEIFERT, JR., AND ORT Appellants do not argue claims 8, 11, and 21 with particularity. See App. Br. 10-11. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 8, 11, and 21 for reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. ORDER The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-9, 11-15, and 17-23 is affirmed. 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 ). 5 Appeal2014-008196 Application 11/828,605 AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation
