Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 16, 2015

12841450 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2015)

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.
12/841,450 07/22/2010 Shengqiang Wang 806799USNP/LUTZ201131US01 2092
48116 7590 12/17/2015
FAY SHARPE/LUCENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843
EXAMINER
CHEN, CAI Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2015 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 SHENGQIANG WANG and
MARTIN J. RADEMACHER
____________

Appeal 2014-001098
Application 12/841,450
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
finally rejecting claims 1–20, all the pending claims in this application. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to the delivery of internet
protocol television (IPTV) service. See Abstract.

Appeal 2014-001098
Application 12/841,450

2
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for delivery of internet protocol
television (IPTV) service, comprising:
receiving an IPTV unicast video stream of a select video
content from an IPTV server associated with a third party IPTV
service provider at a proxy server within a core network
associated with an internet access provider, the IPTV unicast
video stream and the select video content associated with the
third party IPTV service provider, the IPTV unicast video
stream having a unicast internet protocol (IP) addressing
scheme, wherein the third party IPTV service provider offers an
IPTV service to subscribers via the internet access provider and
the IPTV service supplements other services offered by the
internet access provider, wherein the proxy server is maintained
by the internet access provider and associated with the IPTV
service offered by the third party IPTV service provider;
converting the select video content of the IPTV unicast
video stream to an IPTV multicast video stream at the proxy
server, the IPTV multicast video stream associated with the
third party IPTV service provider, the IPTV multicast video
stream having a multicast IP addressing scheme; and
sending the IPTV multicast video stream of the select
video content from the proxy server to each of multiple
subscribers of the third party IPTV service provider at a
respective subscriber device associated with the corresponding
multiple subscriber via the core network using the multicast IP
addressing scheme.

Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Li (US 2007/0130601 A1, June 7, 2007), Chen (US 2008/
0151911 A1, June 26, 2008), and Britt (US 2008/0092181 A1, Apr. 17,
2008).

Appeal 2014-001098
Application 12/841,450

3
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–20
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited art teaches or
suggest a proxy server within a core network associated with an internet
access provider, as set forth in claim 1?
Appellants contend:
Li and Britt do not disclose or fairly suggest a method that
includes receiving an IPTV unicast video stream of select video
content from an IPTV server at a proxy server within a core
network . . . . In fact, Li does not even mention a proxy server
or the use of proxies at all. As for the Britt network, the proxy
server is a local server at a customer premises rather than a
proxy server in the core network . . . .
(App. Br. 8). Appellants further contend that “Li sends a multicast of a TV
program from a destination routing server to users” (id. at 9). Appellants
further contend that “the multicast proxy in Chen is in a RAN [radio access
network] instead of a core network of an internet service provider” (id.).
Appellants also contend that some of the Examiner’s cites in the Answer
“constitute new grounds for rejection because the Office Action does not
cite” the same (see Reply Br. 2–6).
The Examiner finds that Li’s “MARS server [equates to a proxy
server] receives IP television program unicast from the headend server . . . as
such there [] must be an internet access provider associate[d] with [the]
network” (Ans. 17). The Examiner further finds that “Chen teaches a proxy
server as illustrate[d] in Fig. 7” (id.). The Examiner contends that in Li “the
MARS server at the core of the network as illustrate[d] in Fig[s]. 2–4 has
IPTV module [equates to ‘the third party IPTV service provider’]” (id. at
19). We agree with the Examiner.
Appeal 2014-001098
Application 12/841,450

4
We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions set forth in the Answer. Our discussions here will be limited to
the following points of emphasis.
To the extent Appellants are contending that the exact words from the
claim must appear in the prior art, e.g., Appellants’ assertion that “Li does
not even mention a proxy server or the use of proxies at all” (see App. Br.
8), we respectfully point out that there is no requirement that a reference,
either for purposes of obviousness or anticipation, “duplicate word for word
what is in the claims.” Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc.,
953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, it is not necessary that
Li use the exact words of the claim, e.g., “proxy server.” See In re Bond,
910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“These elements must be arranged as in
the claim under review, but this is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test.” (citations
omitted)).
Here, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Li’s multimedia
application routing server “MARS server” serves the same function as the
claimed “proxy server” (see Ans. 17 (citing Li’s Fig. 4 and ¶¶ 48 and 55))
and “the MARS server at the core of the network as illustrate[d] in Fig[s]. 2–
4 has IPTV module to receive unicast TV program stream” (Ans. 17).
Appellants fail to dispute the Examiner’s findings that Li’s MARS server,
which equates to a proxy server, is within a core network associated with an
internet access provider, but merely contend that Li fails to even mention a
proxy server, which we find unpersuasive for the reasons noted supra.
Appellants’ contentions also fail to take into account what the collective
teachings of Li, Chen, and Britt would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art and are therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner’s prima
Appeal 2014-001098
Application 12/841,450

5
facie case of obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
(“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in
any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.” (citations omitted)). This reasoning is applicable here because
the Examiner used the combined teachings of Li, Chen, and Britt in the
rejection. Furthermore, even if we assume arguendo (without deciding) that
Li’s MARS server is not a proxy server (as proffered by the Appellants), we
note that the Examiner also finds that Chen teaches using a proxy server (see
Ans. 17 (citing Chen’s Fig. 7 and ¶¶ 31, 115, and 116)), and it is undisputed
that Li teaches a core network.
Regarding Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner’s findings in the
Answer constituted new grounds of rejections (see Reply Br. 2–6), we note
that Appellants could have filed a petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181(a)
requesting that a ground of rejection set forth in the Answer be designated as
a new ground of rejection (see MPEP § 1207.03 IV). Such petitions are
required to “seek review of the primary examiner’s failure to designate a
rejection as a new ground of rejection in an examiner’s answer.” 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.40(a) (2012). Our review of the record reveals that Appellants did not
timely raise the issue by filing a petition, thus, Appellants have waived any
argument they had to assert that the Examiner’s Answer contained an
improper undesignated new ground of rejection.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the
proposed combination of references set forth by the Examiner supports the
Appeal 2014-001098
Application 12/841,450

6
obviousness rejection. We, accordingly, sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1, 12, and 18, and the rejection of claims 2–11, 13–17, 19, and 20
which are dependent thereon.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc