Ex Parte Shen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2016

10603428 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016)

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.
10/603,428 06/24/2003 Bo Shen 200208570-1 4318
7590 08/30/2016
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
P.O. Box 272400
Fort Collins, CO 80527-2400
EXAMINER
FINDLEY, CHRISTOPHER G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2016 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BO SHEN
____________

Appeal 2015-002318
Application 10/603,4281
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, MARC S. HOFF, and SHARON FENICK,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 The real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
Appeal 2015-002318
Application 10/603,428

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention concerns servicing streaming media. The
method includes performing a multi-stage service on the streaming media
and caching an intermediate result from one of the stages. The type of
intermediate result to be cached is selected according to available processing
and memory resources. Spec. 3.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
Claim 1. A computer implemented method for servicing streaming
media comprising:
receiving, at a computer system, said streaming media;
determining, at said computer system, an allocation of available
processing and memory resources;
performing, at said computer system, a first multi-stage service on
said streaming media;
caching, at said computer system, an intermediate result from one of
the stages of said first multi-stage service, wherein intermediate result types
are each associated with a different combination of an amount of memory
resource and an amount of processing resource and wherein the type of said
intermediate result to be cached is selected according to said available
processing and memory resources that corresponds with one of said
combinations; and
performing, at said computer system, a second multi-stage service on
said intermediate result.

REFERENCES
Yoo US 6,999,512 B2 Feb. 14, 2006
Yogeshwar US 7,110,664 B2 Sept. 19, 2006
Liu US 7,292,602 B1 Nov. 6, 2007

Appeal 2015-002318
Application 10/603,428

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–7, 10–16, and 19–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Liu.
Claims 8, 9, 17, 18, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liu, Yogeshwar, and Yoo.
ISSUES
Appellant argues that Liu does not disclose either wherein clause of
the caching step recited in the independent claims. Appellant contends Liu
does not disclose that intermediate result types are each associated with a
different combination of an amount of memory resource and an amount of
processing resource. App. Br. 6–7. Appellant further argues Liu does not
disclose that the type of intermediate result to be cached is selected
according to the available processing and memory resources corresponding
to one of the combinations. App. Br. 7–8.
Appellant’s contentions present us with the following issues:
1. Does Liu disclose each intermediate result type that is cached is
“associated with a different combination of an amount of memory resource
and an amount of processing resource” as claimed?
2. Does Liu disclose the type of intermediate result to be cached is
“selected according to said available processing and memory resources that
corresponds with one of said combinations” as claimed?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and
every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
Appeal 2015-002318
Application 10/603,428

4
reference.” See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478–79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).

ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1–7, 10–16, AND 19–25
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part:
caching, at said computer system, an intermediate result
from one of the stages of said first multi-stage service, wherein
intermediate result types are each associated with a different
combination of an amount of memory resource and an amount
of processing resource and wherein the type of said
intermediate result to be cached is selected according to said
available processing and memory resources that corresponds
with one of said combinations.

Independent claims 10 and 19 recite nearly identical limitations.
The Examiner finds that Liu discloses all the limitations of the
independent claims. Ans. 2–3, 7. We do not agree with the Examiner’s
finding.
Figure 2 of Liu is reproduced below:
Appeal 2015-002318
Application 10/603,428

5

Figure 2 of Liu is a block diagram of network device 20 in accordance
with one embodiment of the invention. Liu col. 4, ll. 4–6. Liu discloses
buffers 44 receiving the output of bit rate converter 34. Liu col. 7, ll. 36–37.
Buffers 44 perform a function corresponding to the “caching” step recited in
Appellant’s claims.
The claims under appeal require, however, that (a) such caching is of
intermediate result types each associated with a different combination of an
amount of memory resource and an amount of processing resource, and (b)
the type of intermediate result to be cached is selected according to available
processing and memory resources corresponding to one of the combinations.
We agree with Appellant Liu does not disclose that each instance of storage
in a buffer 44 is of an intermediate result type associated with a different
combination of an amount of memory resource and an amount of processing
resource. App. Br. 6–7. We also agree with Appellant Liu does not disclose
the claimed selection of an intermediate result to be cached according to
Appeal 2015-002318
Application 10/603,428

6
available processing and memory resources corresponding to one of the
chosen combinations. App. Br. 7–8.
The Examiner finds, citing to various portions, that Liu considers
memory resources (Ans. 7, citing Liu col. 4) and considers processing
resources (Ans. 7, citing Liu col. 11) in its bit rate control system.
Accepting the Examiner’s statement that “downstream decoder buffer levels
and CPU speed both act as constraints on the channel bandwidth available,”
we nonetheless find Liu, stating in various portions that it “considers”
memory resource and processing resources, falls short of disclosing each
intermediate result type cached in buffer 44 is associated with a “different
combination” of an amount of memory resource and an amount of
processing resource. Id., See Reply Br. 4 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner finds that “data corresponding to bitrates available on
the multiple channels of Liu constitute different data types” and again
mentions that Liu discloses both memory resources and processing resources
are considered in its bit rate control system. Ans. 7. We agree with
Appellant, however, that the Examiner has pointed to no disclosure in Liu,
and we find none, where the type of intermediate result to be cached in
buffer 44 is selected according to available processing and memory
resources corresponding to one of the combinations, as the independent
claims require. We agree with Appellant that Liu does not disclose selecting
a particular bitrate of bitstream data to be stored in buffer 44 according to
the “downstream decoder buffer levels” and “CPU speed.” See Reply Br. 5–
6. To the contrary, Liu discloses that data of all bitstreams is stored in the
buffers 44. See id.
Appeal 2015-002318
Application 10/603,428

7
We agree with Appellant that Liu does not disclose all the limitations
of independent claims 1, 10, and 19. Therefore, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 1–7, 10–16, and 19–25 over Liu.
CLAIMS 8, 9, 17, 18, 26, AND 27
Each of these claims depends from independent claims 1, 10, or 19.
We have reviewed the portions of Yogeshwar and Yoo relied upon by the
Examiner, and we find that Yogeshwar and Yoo do not remedy the
deficiencies identified in Liu, supra. Therefore, we do not sustain the § 103
rejection of claims 8, 9, 17, 18, 26, and 27 over Liu, Yogeshwar, and Yoo,
for the same reasons given with respect to the § 102 rejection of independent
claims 1, 10, and 19 over Liu, supra.

CONCLUSIONS
1. Liu does not disclose that each intermediate result type that is
cached is “associated with a different combination of an amount of memory
resource and an amount of processing resource.”
2. Liu does not disclose that the type of intermediate result to be
cached is “selected according to said available processing and memory
resources that corresponds with one of said combinations.”

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–27 is reversed.

REVERSED