Ex Parte Hayhurst

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 5, 2012

10491511 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2012)

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. 10/491,511 04/01/2004 William Hayhurst 1270-002-PWH 5967 60597 7590 12/06/2012 HANCOCK HUGHEY LLP P.O. BOX 6553 PORTLAND, OR 97228 EXAMINER HICKS, CHARLES N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2424 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/06/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte WILLIAM HYHURST ____________ Appeal 2010-007527 Application 10/491,511 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, ANDREW CALDWELL, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-007527 Application 10/491,511 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-13, 16, 17, and 19-21, which are all the claims remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Representative Claim Claim 1. A method of delivering a displayable media file that is requested by a requesting subscriber of a network of subscribers, comprising the steps of: segmenting the complete media file into a plurality of segments, each segment comprising a discrete sequence of the media file such that the assembly of all of the plurality of segments is required for displaying the complete media file; distributing the segments of the media file among the network of subscribers for storage on respective units of the subscribers; and responding to a request from the requesting subscriber by directing to that requesting subscriber all of the plurality of segments of the media file. Prior Art Bushmitch US 5,928,331 July 27, 1999 He US 6,557,042 B1 Apr. 29, 2003 Novak US 2003/0097655 A1 May 22, 2003 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1-13, 16, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bushmitch and Novak. Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bushmitch, Novak, and He. Appeal 2010-007527 Application 10/491,511 3 ANALYSIS Section 103 rejection of claims 1--13 Claim 1 recites “assembly of all of the plurality of segments is required for displaying the complete media file.” Appellant contends that Bushmitch teaches away from requiring all segments for displaying the complete media file, because the media stream taught by Bushmitch can be reassembled from fewer than all substream components. App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 4. We disagree with Appellant. We adopt as our own the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final Rejection and the Examiner’s Answer. We agree with the conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given by the Examiner. In addition to the Examiner’s findings, we cumulatively find that Appellant’s contention is based on the premise that the system of Bushmitch can only transmit one media stream to a client. However, Appellant has not pointed to anything in Bushmitch that disparages or discourages dividing a file into multiple streams, then transmitting each of the multiple streams to a client using the non-hierarchical coding scheme. Therefore, Bushmitch does not teach away from requiring all segments for displaying the complete file. In fact, Bushmitch teaches transmitting more than one media stream to a client. For example, the media stream X shown in Figure 2 of Bushmitch can be different than media stream Y. See col. 4, ll. 1-10. If each media stream X and Y represents a different segment of digital content, or a “complete media file,” as taught by Novak, then transmitting media stream X to multimedia client 16, followed by transmitting media stream Y to multimedia client 16, teaches “the assembly of all of the plurality of Appeal 2010-007527 Application 10/491,511 4 segments is required for displaying the complete media file” within the meaning of claim 1. Appellant contends that Novak teaches segments of streaming data emanating from a single source. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3-4. The Examiner finds that paragraph 35 of Novak (Ans. 10) and Figure 2 of Bushmitch (Ans. 3-4) teach data emanating from more than one content source. Appellant’s contention that streaming segments of a data file from multiple sources was beyond the level of ordinary skill at the time of invention is inconsistent with paragraph 35 of Novak and Figure 2 of Bushmitch. We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant has not provided arguments for separate patentability of claims 2-13 which fall with claim 1. Section 103 rejection of claims 16, 17, and 19 Claim 16 recites “each segment … having a duration that is substantially shorter than the media file duration.” Appellant contends that the media file segments of Bushmitch are not temporally segmented. According to Appellant, the duration of each substream of Bushmitch matches the duration of the original data stream. App. Br. 8. Appellant concludes that Bushmitch teaches away from segments that each have relatively short durations. App. Br. 9. The Examiner relies on Bushmitch to teach distributing segments of a media file among a network of subscribers for storage. Ans. 7. The Examiner relies on Novak to teach “each segment comprising a sequence of the media file and having a duration that is substantially shorter than the media file duration.” Ans. 7. Appeal 2010-007527 Application 10/491,511 5 Bushmitch teaches a coding scheme that allows a single component to reconstruct a version of the media stream X as shown in Figure 2, and also teaches that another media stream Y can also be sent using the coding scheme. See col. 4, ll. 1-10. If each media stream X and Y shown in Figure 2 of Bushmitch represents a different sequence of digital content as taught by Novak, then transmitting media stream X to multimedia client 16, followed by transmitting media stream Y to multimedia client 16, teaches “each segment comprising a sequence of the media file and having a duration that is substantially shorter than the media file duration” within the meaning of claim 16. Appellant’s arguments attack Bushmitch individually, but do not sufficiently address the combined teachings of Bushmitch and Novak. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Circ. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellant has failed to provide persuasive evidence or argument to show that the combination of Bushmitch and Novak does not teach “each segment … having a duration that is substantially shorter than the media file duration.” We sustain the rejection of claims 16, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103 rejection of claims 20 and 21 Claim 20 recites “the media file is a complete movie having a chronological length and wherein the segmenting step includes segmenting the movie in a manner such that the discrete sequences each represent a Appeal 2010-007527 Application 10/491,511 6 chronologically ordered portion of the movie that is less than the length.” Appellant contends that the He reference is not concerned with delivering and displaying an entire media file, such as a movie. App. Br. 9-10. The Examiner relies on the He reference to teach segmenting a movie in chronological order and assembling segments in chronological order. Ans. 8-9. Novak teaches a movie, such as “Titanic” shown in Figure 8, that is segmented as shown in Figure 4. The He reference teaches presenting segments to a user in chronological order. Col. 10, ll. 17-18. Assembling the segments of a movie as taught by Novak in chronological order as taught by He is the combination of familiar elements according to known methods that does no more that yield the predictable result of displaying a movie to a user as taught by Novak. We sustain the rejection of claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION The rejection of claims 1-13, 16, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bushmitch and Novak is affirmed. The rejection of claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bushmitch, Novak, and He 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED kis