Ex Parte Cook et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 2012

10391518 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte CHARLES I. COOK, BRUCE A. PHILLIPS, KURT A. CAMPBELL, DONALD L. BRODIGAN, and STEVEN M. CASEY _____________ Appeal 2010-003804 Application 10/391,518 Technology Center 2400 ______________ Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, BRYAN F. MOORE, and TREVOR JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15-19, and 21-33. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. Appeal 2010-003804 Application 10/391,518 2 INVENTION The invention is directed to providing video programming to customer premises on demand by customers. See Spec. [0001]. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method of providing a selected video segment to customer premises equipment, the method comprising: receiving a request for transmission of the selected video segment from the customer premises equipment; transferring, through a distribution network, a copy of the selected video segment from a central library to a remote local library proximate to the customer premises equipment in response to receiving the request for transmission; transferring the copy of the selected video segment from the remote local library to one of a plurality of buffers; mapping the one of the plurality of buffers through a routing network to a port interfaced with the customer premises equipment; and transmitting the selected video segment from the one of the plurality of buffers through the routing network and port to the customer premises equipment. REFERENCES Gordon US 6,385,771 B1 May 7, 2002 Sim US 2002/0078174 A1 Jun. 20 2002 Weaver US 6,578,070 B1 Jun. 10, 2003 Plotnick US 7,440,674 B2 Oct. 21, 2008 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-13, 15, 17-19, 21-23, 25, 27-31, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Sim. Ans. 3-11. Appeal 2010-003804 Application 10/391,518 3 Claims 9 and 24 stands rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Sim and Gordon. Ans. 12-13. Claim 16 stands rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Sim and Plotnick. Ans. 13-14. Claims 26 and 32 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Sim and Weaver. Ans. 14-15. ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Sim discloses the following limitations: a. “transferring, through a distribution network, a copy of the selected video segment from a central library to a remote local library proximate to the customer premises equipment in response to receiving the request for transmission [;]” b. “mapping the one of the plurality of buffers through a routing network to a port interfaced with the customer premises equipment” (Independent Claim 1)? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Sim discloses the following limitation: “transmitting indexing information for the selected video segment to the central video library” (Claim 5)? Appeal 2010-003804 Application 10/391,518 4 ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) – Sim Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-13, 15, 17-19, 21-23, 25, 27-31, and 33 Claim 1 Appellants present arguments with respect to claims 1 and 5. Claim 1 recites “transferring, through a distribution network, a copy of the selected video segment from a central library to a remote local library proximate to the customer premises equipment in response to receiving the request for transmission.” Appellants argue that Sim does not disclose transferring a video segment from a central library to a remote library proximate to a customer premises because “Sim discloses a system where video segments are first distributed from a central library to remote locations for storage, before any request is made for a video segment from a CPE.” App. Br. 9. We are not persuaded by this argument. While Sim does disclose that a video is broken into segments and distributed to remote nodes or servers (Sim [0039]), Sim also discloses that if the customer requests a video segment that is missing from a closer node or available servers, the segment is requested from an upper level server (such as distribution server (“DS”) at node B in Fig. 13) which may store the full length video. Sim, Figures 5, 13-20, [0040], [0042], [0077], [0082] (“a master copy may be maintained completely in one node”), [0115]-[0119] (local node request missing segment), [0121], [0128]; see also Ans. 15-16. Thus, the DS that contains the missing segment of the full file, which may be a node with the master copy, is a central library. Therefore, Sim discloses “transferring, through a distribution network, a copy of the selected video Appeal 2010-003804 Application 10/391,518 5 segment from a central library to a remote local library proximate to the customer premises equipment in response to receiving the request for transmission.” Ans. 16. Claim 1 also recites “mapping the one of the plurality of buffers through a routing network to a port interfaced with the customer premises equipment.” Appellants argue that Sim does not disclose this limitation because “[w]hile Sim may disclose methods from delivering a video segment from a storage node to a user, nowhere does this teach mapping a buffer through a routing network to a port interfaced with a CPE.” See Br. 11. Specifically, Appellants argue “[t]he specific load balancers and routers that Sim discloses in ¶150, for example, do not teach any mapping between a buffer and a port interfaced with a CPE through a routing network.” Id. We are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner finds that [T]he limitation of “mapping the one of the plurality of buffers through a routing network to a port interfaced with the customer premises equipment” is interpreted as mapping one of the nodes or application servers or storage devices (e.g., storage in closer server or least congestion server) through a routing network using router or load balancer to a port or interface connected with the end user client. Ans. 19. Appellants have not presented any evidence that the Examiner’s interpretation of this limitation is inconsistent with the Specification or is unreasonably broad. As such, we do not find error in the Examiner’s findings. Given the interpretation of the relevant claim language, the Examiner finds “Sim discloses portions of video are transferred to buffers/storage Appeal 2010-003804 Application 10/391,518 6 devices in different distribution station or edge nodes for delivery to user....” Ans. 18 (citing Figures 5, 13-19, [0115]-[0119]). The Examiner also finds “Sim further discloses when a request is received from a user, the server determines and assigns buffers/local storage in either nearest server/node or closer server/node or least congestion node/server to provide the requested content to the user.” Ans. 18 (citing [0115]-[0018], [0143]-[0144], [0148]). Thus, in order to deliver the content to the user, Sim must map a buffer at the distribution station to a local server or node that is connected to the customer premises equipment. Therefore, we agree that Sim discloses “mapping the one of the plurality of buffers through a routing network to a port interfaced with the customer premises equipment.” Id. Claim 5 Claim 5 recites “transmitting indexing information for the selected video segment to the central video library.” Appellants argue that Sim does not disclose this limitation because “Sim’s embodiments rely on a central library to first index a video or partition it into blocks in order that different video segments may be distributed to distribution stations at the edge of the network.” Br. 12 (citing Sim, Abstract) (internal quotations omitted). We are not persuaded by this argument. While Appellants are correct that the central library in Sim first indexes the video segment, Sim also discloses that if a segment of a video file requested by a user is missing on a local sever, a local distribution center will reassemble the video file by requesting the missing segment from an upper level server (such as distribution server (“DS”) at node B in Fig. 13). See Ans. 19-20 (citing Figures 8, 10, 12, 13-20, [0082], [0089], [0097] (get Appeal 2010-003804 Application 10/391,518 7 command may include a “transfer [of] file metadata”), [0102], [0115]- [0120], [0186], [0211]-[214], [215] (“file metadata also includes information to construct a block’s actual location”) [216], [0217]. As noted above, the distribution center with the missing segment is a central library. That upper level distribution server receives indexing information about the missing segment. Sim [0097]. Therefore, we agree that Sim discloses “transmitting indexing information for the selected video segment to the central video library.” Id. Claims 2, 3, 5, 7-8, 10-13, 15, 17-19, 21-23, 25, 27-31, and 33 are not argued separately and therefore stand or fall with claim 1. See Br. 7-13. For the reasons stated above, we find no error in the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-13, 15, 17-19, 21-23, 25, 27-31, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Sim. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) – Sim and Gordon Claims 9 and 24 Claims 9 and 24 depend from claims 1 and 17 discussed above and are not argued separately and therefore stand or fall with claims 1 and 17. See App. Br. 6-9. Thus, for the reasons stated above, we find no error in the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Sim and Gordon. 35 U.S.C. 103(a) – Sim and Plotnick Claim 16 Claim 16 depends from claim 1 discussed above and is not argued separately and therefore stand or fall with claim 1. See App. Br. 6-9. Thus, for the reasons stated above, we find no error in the Examiner’s decision to Appeal 2010-003804 Application 10/391,518 8 reject claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Sim and Plotnick. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) – Sim and Weaver Claims 26 and 32 Claims 26 and 32 depend from claims 25 and 30 discussed above and are not argued separately and therefore stand or fall with claims 25 and 30. See App. Br. 6-9. Thus, for the reasons stated above, we find no error in the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 26 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Sim and Plotnick. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-13, 15, 17-19, 21-23, 25, 27-31, and 33 is affirmed. 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)(iv) (2011). AFFIRMED ELD