Jean-Baptiste Henry

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 5, 2020

11918546 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2020)

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.
11/918,546 10/15/2007 Jean-Baptiste Henry 2005P00053WOUS 4632
157360 7590 02/05/2020
Brian J Dorini
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings
4 Research Way
3rd Floor
Princeton, NJ 08543
EXAMINER
CHU, WUTCHUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/05/2020 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):
PatentOPs.US@interdigital.com
donna.foligno@interdigital.com
patricia.verlangieri@interdigital.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JEAN-BAPTISTE HENRY
____________________

Appeal 2018-008076
Application 11/918,546
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JENNIFER S. BISK, LARRY J. HUME, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.

BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Specification filed
October 15, 2007 (“Spec.”), the Final Rejection mailed October 18, 2017
(“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed April 17, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), and the
Examiner’s Answer mailed May 30, 2018 (“Ans.”). Appellant did not file a
Reply Brief.
Appeal 2018-008076
Application 11/918,546

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10, 12–14, 16, 18–21, and
23–26. Claims 6, 9, 11, 15, 17, and 22 have been canceled. Appeal Br. 17–
30 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to an
apparatus and method for distribution of digital television within a house.
Spec. 1:5–6. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter
on appeal:
1. A method of requesting a redistribution of digital
broadcast multimedia streams by a client device among client
devices connected to a local area network, wherein said local
area network comprises a broadcast streams redistribution
device, said broadcast streams redistribution device being
configured to receive, from at least one digital data stream
reception module, said digital broadcast multimedia streams
and being further configured to redistribute the received digital
broadcast multimedia streams to said client devices on the local
area network, the method being implemented by said client
device, said method comprising:
receiving a list of digital broadcast multimedia streams
accessible to the client device from the broadcast streams
redistribution device;
sending a query, requesting a redistribution via a stream
player in said redistribution device, to said client device

2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
THOMSON LICENSING. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-008076
Application 11/918,546

3
of a digital broadcast multimedia stream by said
broadcast streams distribution device and selected by said
client device from said list received, wherein the query
comprises a level of priority associated with the query,
said broadcast streams redistribution device using said
level of priority to settle conflicts when choosing a query
to be privileged when said at least one digital data stream
reception module cannot receive all digital broadcast
multimedia streams requested by the client devices of the
local area network.
Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10, 12–14, 16, 18–21, and 23–26 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of US
2006/0074810 A1, published April 6, 2006 (“Verberkt”), WO 03/096699
A1, published Nov. 20, 2003 (“Bachet”), and US 2005/0213502 A1,
published Sept. 29, 2005 (“Convertino”). Final Act. 3–13.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive arguments
for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence
presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis in our analysis below.
Appeal 2018-008076
Application 11/918,546

4
Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner finds that claim 1 would have been obvious over the
combination of Verberkt, Convertino, and Bachet. Final Act. 3–6.
Specifically, the Examiner cites to Vreberkt as teaching the bulk of the
limitations, but relies on Bachet as teaching or suggesting “at least one
digital data stream reception module cannot receive all digital broadcast
multimedia streams requested by the client devices of the local area
network,” and on Convertino for teaching “a redistribution, via stream
player in said redistribution device.” Id. at 5–6 (citing Bachet 58:20–59:2;
Convertino Fig. 2, ¶¶ 29–30, 77).
Appellant argues that “Convertino does not disclose a redistribution of
digital broadcast multimedia stream to client devices in a local network,” but
“merely teaches streaming extracted and reduced information.” Appeal
Br. 14. In addition, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance on
Verberkt as disclosing redistributing content in the original format “is based
on inadmissible hindsight” because Verberkt “merely describes” that the
network may use any communication protocol. Appeal Br. 14–15 (citing
Verberkt ¶ 35).
These arguments do not persuade us of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. First, we note that claim 1 does not require
redistribution to be “in the original format.” In fact, the Specification uses
the term “redistribution” only once and does not explicitly define the term.
Spec. 1:13–15 (“The architecture presently under consideration calls upon a
broadcasting gateway enabling the reception of broadcast multimedia
services and their redistribution with the household via a domestic
network.”). Moreover, the term “distribution,” used throughout the
Appeal 2018-008076
Application 11/918,546

5
Specification, is defined broadly as “distribution of services on an IP
network.” Id. 5:9–12 (“In this document . . . the term distribution will be
reserved to distribution of services on an IP network.”). Appellant does not
point to any language in the claim or the Specification that limits the term
“redistribution” to content in the original format or excludes distributing
extracted and reduced information. Second, the Examiner points to the
combination of Verberkt and Convertino for teaching redistribution of
content. Final Act. 3 (citing Verberkt ¶¶ 34–36, 38–40), 6 (citing
Convertino Fig. 2, ¶¶ 29–30, 77); Ans. 3–4. Thus, Appellant’s arguments do
not address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner.
Appellant also argues that “the alleged obviousness of the claimed
subject-matter through a combined teaching of Verberkt and Convertino
would be illogical since Verberkt’s alleged teaching of ‘in original format’
conflicts with Convertino’s loss of information.” Appeal Br. 15. This
argument does not persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection. Appellant does not explain further or point to any evidence
supporting the conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would find
the combination of Verberkt and Convertino to be illogical. Appellant also
does not address the Examiner’s reliance on Convertino, itself, as supporting
the combination of the two references. Final Act. 6 (citing Convertino ¶ 77);
Ans. 4.
Finally, Appellant argues that Verberkt does not teach or suggest a
level of priority associated with a query for a broadcast stream. Appeal
Br. 15. Instead, Appellant argues that Verberkt teaches only that priorities
are used to restrict consumers from requesting content. Id. (citing Verberkt
¶ 42).
Appeal 2018-008076
Application 11/918,546

6
The Examiner responds that Verberkt teaches that requests of
consumers are associated with priorities and therefore teaches the recited
limitation. Ans. 5. We agree with the Examiner that Verberkt at least
suggests that the query requesting redistribution includes a priority level that
can be used to settle conflicts between consumers because it discloses that
content is only restricted if a conflict between consumers occurs “[w]hen a
content request is received.” Verberkt ¶ 42. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that Verberkt teaches or suggests “wherein the query comprises a
level of priority associated with the query, said broadcast streams
redistribution device using said level of priority to settle conflicts when
choosing a query to be privileged when said at least one digital data stream
reception module cannot receive all digital broadcast multimedia streams
requested by the client devices of the local area network.”
Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of reversible
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellant’s brief has a separate section arguing the patentability of
independent claim 10. Appeal Br. 17–21. This section, however, makes the
same arguments as those made for the patentability of claim 1. Compare id.
at 13–16 with id. at 17–21. Appellant relies on these same arguments as
well for independent claims 12, 16, and 26. Id. at 21–23. For the same
reasons discussed above, these arguments do not persuade us of reversible
error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 10, 12, 16, and 26.
Appellant does not make any additional arguments for the dependent claims.
See id. at 16–17, 21, and 22. Thus, we also are not persuaded of reversible
error in the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2–5, 7, 8, 13, 14,
18–21, and 23–25.
Appeal 2018-008076
Application 11/918,546

7

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10, 12–14, 16,
18–21, and 23–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7, 8, 10,
12–14, 16, 18–
21, 23–26
103 Verberkt, Bachet,
Convertino
1–5, 7, 8,
10, 12–14,
16, 18–21,
23–26

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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED