LAYER3 TV, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 3, 2021

2020002185 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2021)

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withdrawn.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