Ex Parte Phillips et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 7, 2017

14035665 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 7, 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.
14/035,665 09/24/2013 Chris Phillips P40720-US1 2091
27045 7590 07/11/2017
F.RTrSSON TNC EXAMINER
6300 LEGACY DRIVE BAIG, SAHAR A
M/SEVR 1-C-ll
PLANO, TX 75024 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/11/2017 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):
kathryn.lopez@ericsson.com
michelle. sanderson @ eric sson .com
candy.sanders@ericsson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRIS PHILLIPS and JENNIFER ANN REYNOLDS
Appeal 2017-0041421
Application 14/035,665
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—5, 9, 11—15, 19, and 21.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Ericsson AB. See App. Br. 1.
2 Claims 6—8, 10, 16—18, and 20 are objected to for being dependent on a
rejected base claim. See Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2017-004142
Application 14/035,665
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ disclosure relates to “a network-based personal video
recording service utilizing adaptive bit rate technology for a plurality of
users.” Abstract. Claims 1, 11, and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is
reproduced below for reference (emphasis added):
1. A recording device for providing a network-based
personal video recording service for a plurality of users, the
recording device comprising:
a plurality of personal video recorder storage units;
a processor; and
a memory that stores processor-executable instructions,
wherein the processor interfaces with the memory to execute the
processor-executable instructions, whereby the recording device
is operable to:
receive a record message from an end-user device
associated with one user of the plurality of users, wherein the
record message contains a request to record a broadcast content;
store a plurality of sets of segmented files associated with
the broadcast content, wherein each one of the sets of segmented
files has a bitrate that is different than bitrates of the remaining
sets of the segmented files;
generate a unique manifest for the one user, wherein the
unique manifest has references to segmented files associated
with (1) one of the sets of segmented files stored in one of the
personal video recorder storage units associated with the one
user, and (2) the remaining sets of segmented files stored in a
storage unit other than the personal video recorder storage unit
associated with the one user, and
send the unique manifest to the end-user device associated
with the one user.
2
Appeal 2017-004142
Application 14/035,665
References and Rejections
Claims 1, 9, 11, 19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
as being anticipated by Keum (US 2012/0011225 Al; Jan. 12, 2012). Final
Act. 4.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 12, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Keum and Ma (US 2014/0230003 Al; Aug. 14,
2014). Final Act. 5.
Claims 3 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Keum and Jeswani (US 2014/0208314 Al; July 24, 2014).
Final Act. 7.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in the rejection of claim 1,
because “Keum’s manifest file does not have references to segmented files
stored in a personal video recorder unit associated with the one user and
references to segmented files stored in a storage unit (e.g., a general storage
unit or a personal video storage unit) other than the one user’s personal
video recorder unit.” App. Br. 8.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument. The Examiner finds that
Keum discloses “[t]he client device selects an appropriate file based on the
manifest file received earlier and according to the performance or situation
of the network and the client device (manifest file references to segmented
files stored in a personal video recorder unit associated with the one user),”
and “[i]n the case of a lost segment, the client device acquires the lost
segment from the content providing server (references to the segmented file
stored in a storage unit).” Ans. 8, citing Keum || 62—66. The Examiner
3
Appeal 2017-004142
Application 14/035,665
does not indicate however, nor do we find, that Keum discloses a unique
manifest file with both sets of segmented files, as claimed.
Thus, we do not find Keum discloses the unique manifest file as
claimed, which includes:
references to segmented files associated with (1) one of the sets
of segmented files stored in one of the personal video recorder
storage units associated with the one user, and (2) the remaining
sets of segmented files stored in a storage unit other than the
personal video recorder storage unit associated with the one user.
Independent claims 11 and 21 recite similar limitations which we also
do not find to be disclosed by Keum. The remaining cited references do not
cure the deficiencies of Keum. Thus, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the rejection of independent claims 1,11, and 21, and the rejections
of the claims that depend therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—5, 9, 11—15, 19, and 21 is
reversed.
REVERSED
4