Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 26, 2019

14444900 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/444,900 07/28/2014 Xin Wang
89394 7590 03/28/2019
Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
c/o Conley Rose, P.C.
5601 Granite Parkway
Suite 500
Plano, TX 75024
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.
4502-15600 6031
EXAMINER
WOLDEMARIAM, AYELE F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2019 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):
dallaspatents@dfw.conleyrose.com
uspatent@huawei.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XIN WANG, SHAOBO ZHANG, and
YONGLIANG LIU
Appeal2018-004548
Application 14/444,900
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 6-15, 17, and 20-25. Claims 1-5, 16,
18, and 19 have been canceled. See App. Br. 15-20 (Claims Appendix).
We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Huawei Technologies
Co., Ltd. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-004548
Application 14/444,900
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention generally relates to "spatial adaptation in
adaptive streaming." Spec. ,r 2. Claim 6, which is illustrative, reads as
follows:
6. An adaptive streaming system comprising:
a client configured to:
receive a media presentation description (MPD)
indicating bandwidths associated with portions of media
content, wherein the MPD indicates the bandwidths in
representations in the MPD, and wherein a representation
is a collection and encapsulation of one or more media
streams in a delivery format and associated with
descriptive metadata;
determine an available bandwidth associated with
the client;
generate a set of Uniform Resource Locator (URL)
query parameters for spatial adaptation to a region of
interest (ROI) of the media content based on the
bandwidths and the available bandwidth, wherein the
client is a first hardware machine, and wherein the set is
further for spatial adaptation to tiles neighboring the ROI
in a direction instructed by a user when the user instructs
panning; and
transmit the set; and
a server configured to:
receive the set from the client; and
transmit segments of the media content to the client
in response to the set, wherein the segments correspond to
the ROI, wherein the server is a second hardware machine.
2
Appeal2018-004548
Application 14/444,900
Rejection and References
Claims 6-15, 17, and 20-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Fablet et al. (US 2011/0305278
Al; published Dec. 15, 2011) ("Fablet"), Thang et al. (US 8,645,562 B2;
issued Feb. 4, 2014) ("Thang"), and Chen et al. (US 8,806,050 B2; issued
Aug. 12, 2014) ("Chen"). Final Act. 2-7.
ANALYSIS
Claim 6
Appellants contend the combination of Fablet, Thang, and Chen fails
to teach or suggest "wherein the set is further for spatial adaptation to tiles
neighboring the ROI in a direction instructed by a user when the user
instructs panning," as recited in claim 6. App. Br. 11-12. Appellants argue
"[ w ]hile Thang discloses a Base URL, Thang discloses nothing about spatial
adaptation, a region of interest, or panning." App. Br. 11 (citing
Thang 5:66-6:5).
The Examiner finds Thang teaches that the Media Presentation
Description (MPD) "defines a format to announce resource identifiers for
segments" and that "the resource identifiers may be HTTP-Uniform
Resource Locators (URLs)." Ans. 11-12 (citing Thang 4:2---6). Based on
these teachings, the Examiner finds Thang teaches "the set (URLs) is further
for spatial adaptation to tiles (segments)." Id. The Examiner further finds
that Thang teaches the media content is included in a media presentation
"which means when the media content [is] downloaded all segments
surrounding the media content [are] also accessed" and, therefore, Thang
teaches that the tiles (segments) are "neighboring the ROI." Ans. 12 (citing
Thang 3 :40-45). Next, the Examiner finds that Thang teaches a "user
3
Appeal2018-004548
Application 14/444,900
sending a request for a segment of the media using a Uniform Resource
Locator (URL) of the segment" and, therefore, that Thang teaches "in a
direction instructed by a user when the user instructs panning (user sending a
request)." Ans. 12 (citing Thang 5:20-25).
However, the Examiner's findings are insufficient to explain how
accessing content by sending a request for a segment of media using a URL
of the segment, as taught by Thang, teaches or suggests, either alone or in
combination with the teachings of Fablet and Chen, that the set of URL
query parameters is for spatial adaptation to tiles ( e.g., segments)
neighboring a region of interest in a direction instructed by a user when the
user instructs panning, as required by claim 6. We agree with Appellants
(App. Br. 11) that the cited portions of Thang are silent regarding spatial
adaptation and panning.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 6;
independent claims 11 and 21, which recite corresponding limitations; and
claims 7-10, 12-15, 17, 20, and 22-25, which depend from claims 6, 11,
and 21.
Because we find this issue to be dispositive as to the rejection of all
the pending claims, we do not reach the issues raised by Appellants'
remaining arguments.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 6-15, 17, and 20-25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
4