Ex Parte Houdaille et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 28, 2016

11709010 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111709,010 02/20/2007 72109 7590 08/01/2016 MYERS WOLIN, LLC 100 HEADQUARTERS PLAZA NORTH TOWER, 6TH FLOOR MORRISTOWN, NJ 07960-6834 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Remi Houdaille 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. THOM 2733 (PF060036) 1918 EXAMINER LE, RONG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2423 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/01/2016 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): patent@myerswolin.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte REMI HOUDAILLE, WILLEM LUBBERS, and ERIC GAUTIER Appeal2015-002770 Application 11/709,010 Technology Center 2400 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 20, and 21. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 Claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, and 19 have been canceled. Appeal2015-002770 Application 11/709,010 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention is directed to a method and device for "transmitting audiovisual streams ahead of the user commands" (Title (capitalization altered)). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method of transmitting audiovisual streams from a server to a device using a bidirectional connection, said method being implemented by said server, said server transmitting audiovisual channels as audiovisual streams with normal transmission bandwidth and said server transmitting audiovisual channels as audiovisual streams with reduced transmission bandwidth, said reduced transmission bandwidth being lower than said normal transmission bandwidth, said method comprising the following steps: receiving a first request for transmission of a first audiovisual channel to the device; transmitting, as a first audiovisual stream to the device the requested first audiovisual channel with said normal transmission bandwidth in response to the first request; determining at least one second audiovisual channel following or preceding the requested first audiovisual channel; transmitting, as at least one second audiovisual stream, to the device the determined at least one second audiovisual channel with said reduced transmission bandwidth in response to the first request; receiving a second request for transmission of one of said at least one second audiovisual channel, the second request following the first request; transmitting, as a third audiovisual stream, to the device the requested one of said at least one second audiovisual channel with said normal transmission bandwidth in response to the second request. 2 Appeal2015-002770 Application 11/709,010 REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Cooper (US 2004/0003399 Al, published Jan. 1, 2004), Smith (US 7,477,653 B2, issued Jan. 13, 2009), and Amine (US 2005/0091693 Al, published Apr. 28, 2005). The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Cooper, Smith, Amine, and Reitmeier (US 6, 118,498, issued Sept. 12, 2000). The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Cooper, Smith, Amine, and Chapman (US 2006/0200842 Al, published Sept. 7, 2006). The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Cooper, Smith, Amine, and Niijima (US 5,926,230, issued July 20, 1999). The Examiner rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Cooper, Smith, Amine, and Oz et al. (US 7,237,251 Bl, issued June 26, 2007). The Examiner rejected claim 21under35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Cooper, Smith, Amine, and Cho (US 7,836,471 B2, issued Nov. 16, 2010). ANALYSIS With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Cooper's currently- watched channel teaches a first audiovisual channel (Final Act. 5 (citing Cooper i-fi-f 13, 23, 24, 26)). The Examiner also finds Cooper's lower resolution/ quality I' or I frames of a channel following the currently- 3 Appeal2015-002770 Application 11/709,010 watched channel teach a second audiovisual channel of reduced quality, and Smith's limited buffered content teaches a channel transmitted with reduced transmission bandwidth (Ans. 3--4; Final Act. 5-6, 9 (citing Cooper i-fi-124-- 26; Smith col. 27, 1. 49---col. 28, 1. 4, Fig. 10)). The Examiner concludes the combination of Cooper and Smith teaches and suggests transmitting, as a second audiovisual stream, a second audiovisual channel having reduced transmission bandwidth, as claimed (Ans. 4). Appellants contend Cooper does not teach or suggest transmitting, as a second audiovisual stream, a second audiovisual channel having a reduced transmission bandwidth, as required by claim 1. Rather, Cooper transmits an I' or I frame that "is not an audiovisual channel but a mere representation of program content" because the "I frames are simply designed to be visual representations of the program's visual image which is currently being transmitted (for example a logo or a photo of the president)" (App. Br. 9-10 (citing Cooper i-fi-15, 13, 18, 19)). Thus, Appellants contend, a mere representation of a visual image is not the same as an audiovisual channel (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 6). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments, and agree with the Examiner's findings that Cooper's I/I' frames-including multiple video frames, motion clips, and audio clips-teach an audiovisual channel (Ans. 2 (citing Cooper i-fi-f 13, 19, 63)). That is, Cooper recites examples of what the I frame includes, such as a picture of a president, but also states "that I' frames do not need to be constrained to one complete frame of video but may very well be a partial frame or multiple frames, motion clips or otherwise" (emphasis added) (Cooper i-f 19). Appellants' assertions that Cooper's multiple frames and motion clips are not an audiovisual channel 4 Appeal2015-002770 Application 11/709,010 but "remain nothing else than a mere 'equivalent representation' of 'visual representation of the program's visual image"' is mere attorney argument without persuasive evidence or reasoning supporting their assertion (Reply Br. 6). Appellants appear to be arguing the channel includes content; whereas the Examiner finds the channel refers to the transmission stream (see, e.g., Final Act.5; App. Br. 9-10). We also note an I frame is independent of the frames that precede and follow it and stores all of the data needed to display that frame (see Cooper i-fi-15---6). Appellants' additional argument that Cooper's I frame transmission is "not teaching a transmission of an audiovisual channel with reduced transmission bandwidth, because important information is missing from the audiovisual channel, namely the P and B frames" is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1 (App. Br. 9, 10 (emphasis added)). Claim 1 does not require the "second audiovisual channel with said reduced transmission bandwidth" to contain complete channel information or P and B frames. Appellants further contend Cooper and Smith do not teach or suggest transmitting, as a second audiovisual stream, the second audiovisual channel with reduced transmission bandwidth in response to the first request, as required by claim 1 because "the transmission of the multicast stream in Smith is not activated by the reception of the first request" (App. Br. 10, 11). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments, which do not address the Examiner's rejection based on the combination of Smith and Cooper. Specifically, the Examiner relies on Smith for transmitting, as a second audiovisual stream, a channel having reduced transmission bandwidth in response to a first request (Ans. 4, 5 (citing Smith Fig. 10; col. 27, 1. 49---col. 28, 1. 4)). The Examiner additionally relies on Cooper for transmitting, as a 5 Appeal2015-002770 Application 11/709,010 second audiovisual stream, a second audiovisual channel (Ans. 3, 4 (citing Cooper i-fi-120, 24--26)). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to accelerate a channel change by applying Smith's reduced bandwidth transmission to Cooper's transmission of a second audiovisual channel until the second audiovisual channel can be delivered with normal reception (Final Act. 10; Ans. 4, 5). Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner's findings as to the combined teachings of Cooper and Smith. Appellants additionally contend Smith does not teach transmitting, as a second audiovisual stream, a second audiovisual channel having reduced transmission bandwidth, followed by transmitting as a third audiovisual stream, the second audiovisual channel having a normal transmission bandwidth, as required by claim 1 (App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 8-10). Rather, "Smith teaches away from claim 1 since a unicast stream is first sent at a high rate and then the system transitions to a multicast mode of delivery at a lower rate" (App. Br. 11 (citing Smith col. 12, 11. 4--16) (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 9-10 (citing Smith Figs. 9-10; col. 27, 11. 25- 49)). We are not persuaded Smith teaches away from transmitting at a reduced transmission bandwidth, followed by transmission at a normal transmission bandwidth. To establish teaching away, the prior art reference must criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[M]ere disclosure of alternative designs does not teach away."). Here, Smith does not disclose channel transmission at a high rate followed by a lower rate is the only solution likely to work. In fact, Smith discloses channel transmission at a 6 Appeal2015-002770 Application 11/709,010 low rate followed by a higher rate when it teaches the unicast stream is sent at a reduced transmission bandwidth (low rate of Ex Nominal) and then the system transitions to a multicast mode of delivery at normal transmission bandwidth (higher rate ofNominal) (Ans. 7-8 (citing Smith Fig. 10; col. 27, 1. 65---col. 28, 1. 3 (rate of ExNominal)); see also Smith col. 8, 11. 49-55 (parameter E