Swaminathan, Viswanathan et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 2, 2020

2019001054 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 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.
13/036,927 02/28/2011 Viswanathan Swaminathan B1299 5890
108982 7590 07/02/2020
SBMC
116 W. Pacific Avenue
Suite 200
Spokane, WA 99201
EXAMINER
MCLEOD, MARSHALL M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2020 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):
docket@sbmc-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte VISWANATHAN SWAMINATHAN, SHENG WEI,
and SRINIVAS R. MANAPRAGADA
____________________

Appeal 2019-001054
Application 13/036,927
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, LARRY J. HUME, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 seeks review of the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–42. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 This Decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the original
Specification, filed February 28, 2011; “Final Act.” for the Final Office
Action, mailed July 13, 2017; “Appeal Br.” for Appellant’s Appeal Brief,
filed April 20, 2018; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed September
19, 2018; and “Reply Br.” for Appellant’s Reply Brief, filed November 19,
2018.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Adobe
Systems, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001054
Application 13/036,927

2
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to
low-latency streaming of live media content. Spec. 34 (Abstract). Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
sequentially generating multiple data fragments that each
represent a distinct temporal segment of media content
generated from a live content source, and each data fragment
including multiple sub-portions representing smaller temporal
segments of each data fragment, said generating comprising
sequentially generating each sub-portion of the data fragments;
transmitting bootstrap data to a client device, the
bootstrap data mapping time periods to respective ones of the
multiple data fragments, and from which the client device
determines a data fragment to request;
receiving a request for the data fragment from the client
device based on the bootstrap data, the request being received
during generation of a sub-portion of the data fragment; and
responsive to said receiving the request for the data
fragment, providing the sub-portion of the data fragment to the
client device subsequent to the sub-portion being completed
and prior to generation of a next sub-portion of the data
fragment being completed in order to reduce playback latency
from the live content source to the client device.
Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.) (emphases added).
REJECTION
Claims 1–42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Birrer (US 2008/0133767 A1, published Jun. 5, 2008), Bocharov
(US 2011/0080940 A1, published Apr. 7, 2011), and Bouazizi
(US 2011/0307545 A1, published Dec. 15, 2011). Final Act. 2–15.
Appeal 2019-001054
Application 13/036,927

3
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).
For the reasons explained below, we are persuaded of Examiner error.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–42
Claims 1–42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Birrer, Bocharov, and Bouazizi. Final Act. 2–15. Appellant presents
arguments directed to: independent claims 1 and 21 as a group, and
independent claims 10 and 31 as a group. See Appeal Br. 7–21. Because
Appellant does not separately argue any dependent claims (id. at 21), these
claims stand or fall with their respective independent claim. See In re King,
801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites: “receiving a request for [a] data fragment from the
client device based on the bootstrap data, the request being received during
generation of a sub-portion of the data fragment.” Appeal Br. 22 (Claims
App.) (emphasis added) (referred to in this Decision as the “receiving
limitation”). The claim also recites: “responsive to said receiving the
request for the data fragment, providing the sub-portion of the data fragment
to the client device subsequent to the sub-portion being completed and prior
to generation of a next sub-portion of the data fragment being completed in
order to reduce playback latency from the live content source to the client
device.” Id. (emphases added) (referred to in this Decision as the “providing
limitation”).
Appeal 2019-001054
Application 13/036,927

4
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner found that Bocharov teaches
both the receiving limitation and the providing limitation. Final Act. 4–6,
15–17 (citing Bocharov ¶¶ 33, 35, 40). In particular, the Examiner found
Bocharov’s client manifest teaches the claimed “bootstrap data.” Id. at 5.
This manifest includes information about media “fragments stored by the
system 100 up to the current time.” Bocharov ¶ 33. The client uses this
manifest “either to begin requesting ongoing live fragments, or to skip
backwards in time to earlier portions of a presentation.” Id.
The Examiner further found that Bocharov discloses the temporal
requirements of these limitations. See Final Act. 4–6, 15–17. In particular,
the Examiner found that Bocharov teaches “receiving a request for [a] data
fragment . . . during generation of a sub-portion of the data fragment”
because paragraph 40 discloses:
During streaming, particularly live content, a server 105
cannot provide a complete manifest because the event is still
ongoing. Thus, the server 105 provides as much of the manifest
as it can through the metadata in the media chunks . . . The
manifest allows the client 150 to request previously streamed
portions of the media element (e.g., by rewinding), and the
client 150 continues to receive new portions of the manifest
through the metadata of the streamed media chunks . . . .
Final Act. 5 (emphasis omitted and added) (quoting Bocharov ¶ 40). The
Examiner also found that Bocharov teaches “responsive to said receiving the
request for the data fragment, providing the sub-portion . . . subsequent to
the sub-portion being completed and prior to generation of a next sub-
portion of the data fragment being completed” because paragraph 35
discloses:
[T]he client interface component 130 responds to client
requests for available fragments without waiting for subsequent
Appeal 2019-001054
Application 13/036,927

5
fragments from which to include information with the current
fragment. The client can request subsequent fragments by
referencing the current fragment. For example, if the client last
requested a fragment at time 1000 and wants the subsequent
fragment, the client may send a request to get the fragment
following the fragment at time 1000. In this way, the server
can send fragments without introducing additional latency by
waiting for subsequent fragments before sending a fragment.
Final Act. 5–6 (emphasis omitted and added) (quoting Bocharov ¶ 35); see
also id. at 16–17 (stating, without further explanation, that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would interpret the claim language as taught by the
identified disclosure of Bocharov).
Appellant alleges error in these findings. Appeal Br. 7–13.
According to Appellant, although Bocharov receives a client request for a
fragment, Bocharov fails to indicate that this request is received “during
generation of the requested fragment.” Id. at 9. Instead, according to
Appellant, “Bocharov is directed to fragments that are completely created
and stored prior to providing clients with media fragments.” Id. Further,
Appellant argues the cited portions of Bocharov fail to mention providing “a
portion of the fragment . . . in response to the client request for the
fragment” much less “providing a sub-portion of a data fragment . . . before
the generation of a following sub-portion is complete.” Id. at 12.
In the Answer, the Examiner reiterates the findings in the Final Office
Action. Ans. 3–4. In addition, the Examiner points to “the combined
teachings of Birrer and Bocharov.” Id. at 4. The Examiner finds that Birrer
discloses a “‘super chunk’ 840” (which maps to the claimed “fragment”) that
includes several “chunks” of video data (which map to the claimed “sub-
portions”). Id. at 5 (citing Birrer ¶ 57); see also Final Act. 3 (finding this
Appeal 2019-001054
Application 13/036,927

6
portion of Birrer discloses the claimed fragment that includes multiple sub-
portions). The Examiner also points to Bocharov’s disclosure that it sends
fragments “without introducing additional latency by waiting for subsequent
fragments before sending a fragment.” Ans. 6 (quoting Bocharov ¶ 35).
On this record, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
In particular, we find that the Examiner has not adequately explained (and it
is unclear from our review) how the relied-upon disclosures teach or suggest
the temporal requirements of the receiving and providing limitations—e.g.,
“receiving a request for [a] data fragment . . . during generation of a sub-
portion of the data fragment” and, in response, “providing the sub-portion
. . . prior to generation of a next sub-portion of the data fragment being
completed.” Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds: (1) Birrer discloses fragments that each include
sub-portions, (2) Bocharov sends a data fragment in response to a client’s
request for that fragment, (3) Bocharov’s client can request a particular
fragment by referencing a previous fragment, and (4) Bocharov “send[s]
fragments without introducing additional latency by waiting for subsequent
fragments before sending [the requested] fragment.” Final Act. 3–6, 15–17;
Ans. 3–6. Appellant does not dispute these factual findings (see generally
Appeal Br. 7–13)—and we perceive no error in them—but the claim
requires more. In particular, it recites receiving a request for a fragment
during generation of a sub-portion of that requested fragment and providing
that sub-portion of the requested fragment prior to completing generation of
another sub-portion of the requested fragment. Stated differently, the claim
requires receiving a request for a fragment while that fragment is being
generated and, in response, providing a portion of that fragment before the
Appeal 2019-001054
Application 13/036,927

7
entire fragment has been generated. See also Appeal Br. 11–12. The
Examiner points to paragraphs 35 and 40 of Bocharov, but the Examiner
does not explain (and we do not perceive) how these passages teach or
suggest these claimed requirements. Rather, these passages describe
receiving a request for a fragment (which may be identified by referencing a
prior fragment), sending the requested fragment prior to generating
subsequent fragments, and updating the client manifest (the claimed
“bootstrap data”). Bocharov ¶¶ 35, 40.
Notably, the Examiner does not find or explain why it would have
been obvious to modify the cited references to yield these missing temporal
requirements. Accordingly, we do not decide whether it would have been
obvious to modify Bocharov, in light of Birrer and/or Bouazizi, to yield the
temporal requirements of claim 1. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (requiring a “rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness”), cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art
combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1 or independent claim 21, which recites the disputed
limitation in commensurate form. Further, dependent claims 2–9 and 22–30
stand with their respective independent claim.
Appeal 2019-001054
Application 13/036,927

8
Claim 10
For independent claim 10, Appellant presents substantially the same
arguments as those discussed above (see Appeal Br. 13–18; Reply Br. 5–8),
and the Examiner presents substantially the same findings and response (see
Final Act. 7–10; Ans. 6–7).3
Claim 10 recites limitations analogous to the receiving and providing
limitations required by claim 1. In particular, claim 10 recites: “providing a
request for [a] data fragment to the remote system based on the bootstrap
data, the request being provided during generation of a sub-portion of the
data fragment” and “receiving the sub-portion of the data fragment from the
remote system subsequent to the sub-portion being completed and prior to
generation of a next sub-portion of the data fragment being completed.”
Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.) (emphases added).
Therefore, on this record, for the reasons explained above with respect
to independent claim 1, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance
on the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitations
of claim 10. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 10 or independent claim 31, which recites the
disputed limitation in commensurate form. Further, dependent claims 11–20
and 32–42 stand with their respective independent claim.

3 Appellant also alleges error in the Examiner’s finding that Bocharov
teaches a third limitation of independent claim 10. Appeal Br. 19–21. We
do not address this argument because our determination resolves the § 103
rejection for all pending claims. See, e.g., Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742
F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining that an administrative agency
may render a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”).
Appeal 2019-001054
Application 13/036,927

9
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–42 103 Birrer, Bocharov,
Bouazizi
1–42

REVERSED