LAYER3 TV, INC.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 3, 20212020002185 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/630,621 02/24/2015 Charles A. HASEK IV TMO0007.USU1 5563 154568 7590 08/03/2021 T-Mobile c/o Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck 410 17th STREET SUITE 2200 DENVER, CO 80202 EXAMINER TOPGYAL, GELEK W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2481 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/03/2021 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): PatentDocket@BHFS.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte CHARLES A. HASEK IV ________________ Appeal 2020-002185 Application 14/630,621 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9, 11, 12, and 16–21.1 Appeal Br. 6– 9. Claim 10 is canceled. Appeal Br. (Claims App. ii). Claims 13–15 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), but that rejection has been withdrawn. Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Layer3 TV, Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-002185 Application 14/630,621 2 SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to a “a system and method of digital video recording of media content from a content delivery network (CDN) stored to a device such as a set-top box with integrated digital video recorder (DVR), to network digital video recorder (nDVR), or both.” Abstract. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is reproduced below (disputed limitations emphasized and bracketing added). 1. A system for managing a transmission of media content in a content delivery network (CDN), the system comprising: a scheduler configured to schedule recording of the media content at a time that is based on a selection received from a user; a resource manager configured to: receive a service request from the scheduler for delivery of the media content; process the service request; store the media content in storage; [1] prior to receiving a user request for the media content, determine non-uniform data in the media content that have a higher resolution than other data in the media content; and [2] prior to receiving the user request for the media content, identify from a source other than the media content uniform data that corresponds to the non-uniform data and has a same resolution as the other data; and Appeal 2020-002185 Application 14/630,621 3 a content processing and communication system communicatively coupled with the resource manager and configured to: [3] prior to receiving the user request for the media content, replace the non-uniform data in the storage with the uniform data; wherein: [4] the media content has a more uniform resolution after the uniform data replaces the non- uniform data than before. Appeal Br. (Claims App. i). REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references: Name Reference Date Peters et al. (“Peters”) US 2008/0235746 A1 Sept. 25, 2008 Candelore US 2012/0110628 A1 May 3, 2012 MacDonald Boyce et al. (“MacDonald Boyce”) US 8,514,887 B2 Aug. 20, 2013 Beattie Jr. et al. (“Beattie”) US 2014/0059608 A1 Feb. 27, 2014 Takamune US 2015/0086184 A1 Mar. 26, 2015 Lillebo WO 2006/110046 A1 Oct. 19, 2006 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1–8, 12, and 16–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Beattie, Candelore, and Takamune. Final Act. 6–12. The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Beattie, Candelore, Takamune, and Peters. Final Act. 12. The Examiner rejects claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Beattie, Candelore, Takamune, MacDonald Boyce. Final Act. 12–13. Appeal 2020-002185 Application 14/630,621 4 The Examiner rejects claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Beattie, Candelore, Takamune, and Lillebo. Final Act. 13–14. ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner relies on Candelore’s teaching of making mixed-resolution media more uniform by replacing a lower-resolution version of a portion of the media with a higher-resolution version of the portion, in combination with Takamune’s conversion of high- image-quality video content to low-image-quality video content, to teach or suggest recitations: [1] “prior to receiving a user request for the media content, determine non-uniform data in the media content that have a higher resolution than other data in the media content”; [2] “prior to receiving the user request for the media content, identify from a source other than the media content uniform data that corresponds to the non-uniform data and has a same resolution as the other data”; [3] “prior to receiving the user request for the media content, replace the non-uniform data in the storage with the uniform data”; and [4] wherein “the media content has a more uniform resolution after the uniform data replaces the non-uniform data than before.” Final Act. 7–8 (citing Candelore ¶¶ 26, 38, 44, Fig. 9; Takamune ¶ 90, Figs. 1–5). The Examiner finds that although “Candelore teaches the concept of making a file more uniform . . . by replacing low resolution portions with high resolution portions[,] Takamune teaches another way of making the file uniform by changing the file to a lower resolution version.” Id. at 9. Thus, the Examiner concludes “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated [to modify Candelore based on the teachings and suggestions of Appeal 2020-002185 Application 14/630,621 5 Takamune] for the benefit of saving recording space and for the purpose of increasing compatibility between devices.” Id. Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “applying the teaching of Takamune to down convert an entire mixed resolution file would result in an overall lower resolution mixed resolution file . . . . just as mixed as before down conversion, as the entire mixed resolution [would be] down converted.” Reply Br. 2–3 (emphases added); Appeal Br. 7–8 (“Takamune down converts an entire uniformly higher resolution file”). Appellant, however, unpersuasively attacks Takamune separately rather than showing error in the Examiner’s reliance on Takamune in combination with Candelore and Beattie. Ans. 14. In particular, the Examiner concludes that the combination of Takamune with Candelore and Beattie teaches or suggests converting “portions [of a mixed-resolution file] that are high resolution down to lower resolution thereby promoting space saving and increasing compatibility.” Id. at 16 (emphasis added). The Examiner’s conclusion is supported by Candelore’s teaching of modifying only a portion of mixed-resolution media content (specifically, to replace low-resolution portions with high-resolution portions) and by Takamune’s teaching of converting high-resolution media data to low-resolution media data. Final Act. 7 (citing, e.g., Candelore Fig. 9), 8 (citing, e.g., Takamune ¶ 90). Appellant’s contention that applying Takamune’s teachings and suggestions to mixed-resolution media content would entail lowering the resolution of all the media content (i.e., reducing resolution of both high-resolution portions and low-resolution portions) fails to account for the teachings and suggestions of Candelore and is speculative. Appellant further argues that Appeal 2020-002185 Application 14/630,621 6 if one skilled in the art wanted the benefits in Takamune of saving recording space and increasing compatibility, one skilled in the art would have down converted the file before transmission and not ended up with a mixed resolution file at all as the higher resolution portions would lose those benefits of saving storage space and increasing compatibility until later replaced. Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis added); Reply Br. 3 (“down convert[ing] after . . . transmission achieves a slower network speed without any added benefit of saving storage space”). Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because in Candelore content source 10 and internet protocol television (IPTV) receiver device 18 are two separate devices. Candelore ¶ 29, Fig. 1. One skilled in the art would have recognized that IPTV receiver device 18 alone could not convert a mixed-resolution media file before transmission (i.e., content source 10 would have to be modified to effect such pre-transmission conversion). Even in Candelore, the modification of the mixed-resolution media file (i.e., the replacement of low-resolution portions of media data with corresponding high-resolution media data) happens after transmission of the mixed-resolution media file, resulting in transmission of more data than if a uniformly high-resolution media file had been transmitted in the first place. Id. Fig. 9. Moreover, as Appellant acknowledges, the benefits of saving storage space and increasing compatibility would still be realized once the high-resolution portions of the mixed-resolution media content are converted to a lower-resolution. Appeal Br. 8. For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Beattie, Candelore, and Takamune teaches or suggests disputed recitations [1]–[4]. Final Act. 7–9. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1, and the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of Appeal 2020-002185 Application 14/630,621 7 claims 2–9, 11, 12, and 16–21, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons. Appeal Br. 8–9; Reply Br. 5. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–8, 12, 16–19 103 Beattie, Candelore, Takamune 1–8, 12, 16– 19 9 103 Beattie, Candelore, Takamune, Peters 9 11 103 Beattie, Candelore, Takamune, MacDonald Boyce 11 20, 21 103 Beattie, Candlore, Takamune, Lillebo 20, 21 Overall Outcome 1–9, 11, 12, 16–21 No time period for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation