BROADPEAK

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 16, 2021

2020003483 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 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.
14/424,661 02/27/2015 Rémy Brebion 165181 8035
25944 7590 09/16/2021
OLIFF PLC
P.O. BOX 320850
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850
EXAMINER
LIN, SHERMAN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2021 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):
OfficeAction25944@oliff.com
jarmstrong@oliff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RÉMY BREBION,
DOMINIQUE COLOMBEL and JACQUES LE MANCQ
___________

Appeal 2020-003483
Application 14/424,661
Technology Center 2400

____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JASON V. MORGAN and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Appellant2 is appealing the final rejection of claims 1–12 and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). See Appeal Brief 3. Claims 1 and 14 are

1 Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s
determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed October 3, 2019), the
Reply Brief (mailed April 6, 2020), the Final Action (mailed February 26,
2019) and the Answer (mailed February 6, 2020), for the respective details.

2 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. 1.42(a). (“The word
‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint
inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45,
or 1.46.”). Appellant identifies BROADPEAK as the real party in interest.
Appeal 2020-003483
Application 14/424,661
2

independent. Claim 13 is not addressed in the Appeal. See Appeal Brief A-
5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.
Introduction
According to Appellant, “The present invention generally relates to
delivering an audio-visual content to a client device, an interconnecting
device interconnecting a first network to a second network, the client device
being connected to the second network, an equipment adapted to provide the
audio-visual content being connected to the first network.” Specification 1.
Figure 1A represents a system according to the present invention and
is reproduced below:

The system comprises a network interconnecting device 101,
such as a home gateway, adapted to interconnect a first network
110 and a second network 120. The system further comprises a
portal server providing a web site via which a description of
audio-visual (AV) contents is available through a CDN [Content

Appeal Brief 1.

Appeal 2020-003483
Application 14/424,661
3

Delivery Network]. The system further comprises a CDN server
112 from which the AV contents described via the web site can
be accessed for being further displayed to a user. The CDN
server 112 is adapted to deliver the AV contents on demand in a
unicast way. The CDN server 112 is referenced in the
aforementioned description of the AV contents as the device
providing said AV contents. The system may further comprise
additional servers, such as a multicast server 113 adapted to
deliver some or all said AV contents in a multicast way.
Specification 9.
The network interconnecting device 101 interconnects the first
network 110 and the second network 120, so that a client device
121 connected to the second network 120 can access services
offered by the portal server 111, the CDN server 112 and said
additional servers, via the network interconnecting device 101.
The network interconnecting device 101 comprises an agent 102,
acting as a relay between the CDN equipment and the client
device 121.
Specification 10.
Representative Claim3 (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method for delivering an audio-visual content to a client device, an
interconnecting device interconnecting a first network to a second network, the
client device being connected to the second network, an equipment storing the

3 Appellant does not argue independent claims 1 and 14 individually. See
Appeal Brief 15 (“Claim 14 has features similar to claim 1, but the features
of claims 1 and 14 are not taught by the cited art of record.”). Accordingly,
we select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“When multiple claims subject to the same ground of
rejection are argued as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may
select a single claim from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal
as to the ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the
basis of the selected claim alone.”).

Appeal 2020-003483
Application 14/424,661
4

audio-visual content and adapted to provide the audio-visual content being
connected to the first network, wherein said equipment performs:
receiving, from the client device, a first request for receiving the
audio-visual content;
transmitting a redirecting message to the client device, said
redirecting message redirecting the client device toward an agent
implemented in the interconnecting device, the redirecting message
indicating a relocation of the audio-visual content; and wherein said
agent performs:
receiving, from the client device, a second request for receiving the
audio-visual content; and
acting as a relay between said equipment and the client device, in
response to said second request, and
wherein the redirecting message indicates a temporary relocation of
the audio-visual content so that, when the client device makes a later
attempt to get the audio-visual content the client device contacts again
said equipment.

References
Name4 Reference Date
Khan US 2002/0143951 A1 October 3, 2002
Takeshima US 2004/0054779 A1 March 18, 2004
Soderberg US 6,865,605 B1 March 8, 2005
Jannink US 2008/0120501 A1 May 22, 2008
Liu US 2010/0238924 A1 September 23, 2010
Uwe WO 2012/000165 A1 January 5, 2012

4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.

Appeal 2020-003483
Application 14/424,661
5

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Soderberg and Takeshima. Final Action 3–5.
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Soderberg, Takeshima and Uwe. Final Action 6–8.
Claims 4–6, 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Soderberg, Takeshima, Uwe and Khan. Final Action 8–
11.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Soderberg, Takeshima, Uwe and Jannink. Final Action 11–12.
Claims 10–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Soderberg, Takeshima and Liu. Final Action 12–14.

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that, “Soderberg does not teach ‘transmitting a
redirecting message to the client device, said redirecting message redirecting
the client device toward an agent implemented in the interconnecting device,
the redirecting message indicating a relocation of the audio-visual content’
as provided in claim 1 (and similarly in claim 14).” Appeal Brief 16. The
Examiner finds that Soderberg teaches claim 1 limitation, “transmitting a
redirecting message to the client device, said redirecting message redirecting the
client device toward an agent implemented in the interconnecting device, the
redirecting message indicating a relocation of the audio-visual content.” Final
Action 4 (“(i.e., response with indication of relocation as taught/suggested
by redirect responses to clients indicating content has moved temporarily,
Appeal 2020-003483
Application 14/424,661
6

wherein the response includes an identifier of the server to contact for the
content in Soderberg, col. 1 lines 20–39)”). We find Appellants arguments
are persuasive of Examiner error.
Appellant argues that “column 1, lines 20–39 of Soderberg [ ] is the
Background of the Invention section [ ] which discusses that deficient
prior art systems require that a client can choose from certain content that
has temporarily moved from a server.” Appeal Brief 16. Appellant
contends that Soderberg actually teaches away from the claimed invention
because Soderberg discloses that “redirection, as taught in the prior art,
introduces problems when practiced in a front-end server system” such as
“[i]n receiving a redirect response because content has moved from one
back-end server to another, the client is made aware of back-end server
storage details and transparent access to the content is eliminated.” Appeal
Brief 16 (quoting Soderberg column 2, lines 9–10, 12–16). Soderberg
concludes that “the prior art lacks methods and computer program products
for using a front-end server in transparently redirecting a request for content
such that a client system is unaware of the redirection.” Soderberg, column
2, lines 23–27; see Appeal Brief 16.
Soderberg teaches that, “These and other problems with the prior art
are overcome by the present invention, which is directed toward
transparently redirecting a request for content such that a client system is
unaware of the redirection” and in that way “By making the requests through
the front-end server, the client does not know and does not care which back-
end server stores the content being requested.” Soderberg, column 2, lines
30–34, 36–38 (emphasis added); see Appeal Brief 16. Soderberg discloses
that, “As far as the client is concerned, the front-end server is the source of
Appeal 2020-003483
Application 14/424,661
7

the requested content.” Soderberg, column 2, lines 38–40. Appellant
argues:
Soderberg teaches that the server does not send any redirection
message to the client because it does not want to involve the
client at all -- in fact, all that is sent to the client system in
Soderberg is the actual content requested. Soderberg wants true
transparency in that the client device “does not know” where the
content is coming from.
Appeal Brief 17.
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). See also
In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that merely
disclosing more than one alternative does not teach away from any of these
alternatives if the disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage the alternatives).
Here, Soderberg acknowledges that similar to the claimed invention of
the instant application, “In the prior art, servers send redirect responses to
the client system and the client system is responsible for reissuing the
request for content to the server identified in the redirect response.”
Soderberg, column 1, lines 34–37. However, Soderberg does not merely
present an alternative to the disclosed prior art, Soderberg openly
discourages sending the redirection request for content to the client system
as taught by the prior art, preferring to send the redirection request to the
front end server instead. See Soderberg, column 2, lines 30–34, 36–40.
Soderberg discloses that:
Appeal 2020-003483
Application 14/424,661
8

Methods and computer program products for transparently
redirecting a request for content such that a client system is
unaware of the redirection. A client requests content through a
front-end server that provides a single point of access for content
stored on one or more back-end servers. The single point of
access makes it so the client does not know and does not care
which particular back-end server stores the requested content.
Soderberg, Abstract.Accordingly, we find Appellant’s arguments
persuasive of Examiner error because independent claim 1 requires
“transmitting a redirecting message to the client device, said redirecting
message redirecting the client device toward an agent implemented in the
interconnecting device” and Soderberg’s invention teaches away
transmitting to the client device as discussed above. We also reverse the
Examiner obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2–12 because they
depend upon claim 1 either directly or indirectly.
However, we are not convinced of Examiner error in regard to
independent claim 14. Appellant contends, “Claim 14 has features similar to
claim 1, but the features of claims 1 and 14 are not taught by the cited art of
record.” Appeal Brief 15. We agree with Appellant that claim 14’s features
are similar to claim 1’s features, however they are not identical in language
or in scope. Claim 14 recites a broader limitation: “a transmitter for
transmitting a redirecting message, said redirecting message aiming at
redirecting the client device toward an agent implemented in the
interconnecting device, the redirecting message indicating a relocation of the
audio-visual content” (emphasis added).
As we discuss above, Soderberg discloses sending the redirection
request to the front end server instead of the client system and by doing so,
Soderberg’s message aims to redirect the client system towards the agent in
the interconnecting device—the front end server where “the client does not
Appeal 2020-003483
Application 14/424,661
9

know and does not care which back-end server stores the content being
requested.” See Soderberg, column 2, lines 30–40 (“A front-end server
receives requests for content stored on one or more back-end servers.”).
During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its
broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted) (internal
quotation marks omitted). “[T]he words of a claim ‘are generally given their
ordinary and customary meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations omitted). Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 14.

CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 14 103 Soderberg,
Takeshima
14 1
2–3 103 Soderberg,
Takeshima, Uwe
2–3
4–6, 8, 9 103 Soderberg,
Takeshima, Uwe,
Khan
4–6, 8, 9
7 103 Soderberg,
Takeshima, Uwe,
Jannink
7
10–12 103 Soderberg,
Takeshima, Liu
10–12
Overall
Outcome
14 1–12

Appeal 2020-003483
Application 14/424,661
10

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED IN PART