Ex Parte Chari

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 15, 2019

14446767 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/446,767 07/30/2014 21924 7590 ARRIS Enterprises LLC Legal Dept - Docketing 101 Tournament Drive HORSHAM, PA 19044 03/19/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Santhana Chari 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 18027 7457 EXAMINER BROWN JR, HOW ARDD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2488 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/19/2019 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): ARRIS.docketing@arris.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SANTHANA CHARI Appeal2018-007137 Application 14/446,767 1 Technology Center 2400 Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, NABEEL U. KHAN, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-8, all the claims pending in the application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 ARRIS Enterprises, Inc. ("Appellant") is the applicant, as provided for under 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 1.46, and is also identified in the Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. See Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claims 9-22 are canceled. See Appeal Br. 8. Appeal2018-007137 Application 14/446,767 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Invention Appellant's invention relates "to the generation of reduced sets of video streams for use in adaptive bit rate streaming." See Spec. ,r 1. 3 Exemplary Claim Independent claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below with limitation at issue italicized. 1. A method for transmitting video streams for a media program from a transcoding device to a media device, the method comprising: receiving, by the transcoding device, video data; generating, by the transcoding device, a plurality of profiles from the video data, each profile representing a video stream, each profile having unique encoding parameters for the media program, including bitrate and resolution; performing analysis on the generated plurality of profiles to identify similar profiles; reducing the number of profiles to provide a distinct set of profiles that are identified as similar; and transmitting the distinct set of profiles from the transcoding device to the media device. Appeal Br. 7. 3 Throughout this Decision, we refer to: (1) Appellant's Specification filed July 30, 2014 ("Spec."); (2) the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed June 20, 2017; (3) the Appeal Brief filed March 15, 2018 ("Appeal Br."); and (4) the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed May 1, 2018. 2 Appeal2018-007137 Application 14/446,767 REFERENCES AND REJECTION Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 8,718,145 Bl; issued May 6, 2014) ("Wang") and Chen (US 2012/0185610 Al; published July 19, 2012). Final Act. 3-5. Our review is limited to the above rejection and the issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2017). CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS Rejection of Claim 1 under Â§ 103 Issue: Does the Examiner err in finding Wang teaches or suggests "reducing the number of profiles to provide a distinct set of profiles that are identified as similar," as recited in claim 1? The Examiner finds Wang teaches or suggests the limitation at issue. See Final Act. 4 (citing Wang Abstract, Fig. 1, box 104). Appellant disputes the Examiner's factual findings. Appellant argues: The Wang abstract indicates that it separately determines the similarity of the lower quality profiles and the higher quality profiles. Since higher quality profiles are never discarded irrespective of their similarity, reducing is not done based on similarity. Also, for the lower quality profiles of Wang that are discarded, they are not indicated to be discarded due to their similarity measure. Only due to being lower quality. Accordingly, Wang does not disclose "reducing" based on whether the profiles are "similar" or not as claimed. Appeal Br. 5. 3 Appeal2018-007137 Application 14/446,767 Wang's Abstract is set forth below: A relative quality score is provided that takes into account properties of an encoded version of a source video. For example, one such quality score calculates a difference of higher and lower quality transcoded versions of the source video, and computes quality metrics for each to evaluate how similar the transcoded versions are to the source video. A relative quality score quantifying the quality improvement of the high-quality version over the low-quality version is computed. The relative quality score is adjusted based on a measurement of the quality of the source video. If the relative quality score for the video indicates a sufficient quality improvement of the high-quality version over the low-quality version, various actions are taken, such as retaining the high-quality version, and making the high-quality version available to users, e.g. via a video viewing user interface. Wang, Abstract ( emphasis added). Appellant first argues Wang does not teach the limitation at issue because "for the lower quality profiles of Wang that are discarded, they are not indicated to be discarded due to their similarity measure. Only due to being lower quality. Accordingly, Wang does not disclose 'reducing' based on whether the profiles are 'similar' or not as claimed." Appeal Br. 5. Appellant's argument is unpersuasive of Examiner error. Appellant agrees Wang's lower quality profiles are discarded but argues they are discarded for being lower quality, not due to their similarity or lack of similarity. We are unpersuaded because Wang "computes quality metrics for [higher and lower quality transcoded versions of the source video] to evaluate how similar the transcoded versions are to the source video." Abstract. Wang discusses retaining a higher quality profile because of its similarity to the source video and discarding a lower-quality profile due to its lack of similarity to the source video. Wang 2:9-13 (If the relative 4 Appeal2018-007137 Application 14/446,767 quality score for the video indicates a sufficient quality improvement of the high-quality version over the low-quality version, then the high-quality version is retained . . . . Otherwise, the high quality version can be discarded to conserve storage." Thus, Appellant's argument that Wang's lower quality profiles are not discarded "due to their similarity measure" or based on whether the profiles are dissimilar (Appeal Br. 5) is unpersuasive because Wang discards a profile due to its dissimilarity or lack of similarity to the source content. See Wang Abstract. Appellant next argues that because Wang's "higher quality profiles are never discarded irrespective of their similarity, reducing is not done based on similarity." Appeal Br. 5. This argument is unpersuasive because Wang discusses discarding a high quality version to conserve storage "[i]f the relative quality score for the video indicates a[n] [in]sufficient quality improvement of the high-quality version over the low-quality version." See Wang 2:9-13. As discussed, Wang also teaches that the "relative quality score" indicates how similar the profile is to the source video. See Wang Abstract. We, therefore, agree with the Examiner's finding that Wang's Abstract teaches or suggests the limitation at issue. Wang reduces the number of profiles by discarding profiles and in doing so "provide[ s] a distinct set of profiles that are identified as similar" because Wang's remaining high-quality profiles have been retained due to their identification as being similar to the source content, in comparison to the discarded profiles. Final Act. 4. In reaching our conclusion, we emphasize that the language of claim 1 does not clarify what the "similar" profiles are "similar" to, and decline to import limitations from the Specification into the claims. 5 Appeal2018-007137 Application 14/446,767 For the reasons discussed, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner's factual findings or conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 rejection of independent claim 1 and of dependent claims 2-8, which are not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 4. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-8. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6