Ex Parte Pfeffer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2017

11681774 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2017)

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.
11/681,774 03/03/2007 Howard Pfeffer TW-14APP1 (TWC-06-35) 7850
26479 7590
STRAUB & POKOTYLO
788 Shrewsbury Avenue
TINTON FALLS, NJ 07724
EXAMINER
ALATA, YASSIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2017 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 HOWARD PFEFFER and KENNETH GOULD
Appeal 2017-008062
Application 11/681,774
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-008062
Application 11/681,774
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-17 and 45-57. Claims 18^14 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ application relates to video content delivery that allows
for receiving and recording multiple programs communicated at the same
time on the same channel. Spec. ^ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, the method comprising:
receiving, at a server, a first request for first content from
a first user device;
assigning the requested first content to a first content
delivery stream for delivery;
receiving a second request for second content from the
first user device;
assigning the requested second content to said first content
delivery stream for delivery during a period of time during which
at least some of said first content is to be delivered;
receiving a third request for third content from a second
user device, said second user device being different from said
first user device;
determining if the requested third content is assigned for
delivery to one of a plurality of content delivery streams;
performing a step of checking the capacity of a content
delivery stream in response to said third request if it is
determined that the requested third content is not assigned for
delivery of one or the plurality of content delivery streams; and
bypassing said step of checking the capacity of a content
delivery stream in response to said third request and
communicating tuning information to the second user device
2
Appeal 2017-008062
Application 11/681,774
corresponding to the content delivery stream to which the
requested third content has been assigned for delivery, if it is
determined that said requested third content is already assigned
to be delivered by a content delivery stream;
communicating the first content delivery stream to a
receiver, said first content delivery stream including said first
content and said second content, said first content including
multiple different elementary streams corresponding to said first
program, said second content including multiple different
elementary streams corresponding to said second program;
selectively providing a subset of elementary streams
corresponding to said first program that were communicated to
the receiver to a recording device, said subset of elementary
streams corresponding to the first program provided to the
recording device including fewer elementary streams
corresponding to said first program than are included in said first
content delivery stream.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Rakib US 6,857,132 B1 Feb. 15,2005
Ellis US 2005/0229213 A1 Oct. 13,2005
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1-17 and 45-57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rakib and Ellis.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the following groups of claims: Claims 1-11
(Group I); claim 12 (Group II); claims 13, 16, 17, and 45^47 (Group III);
3
Appeal 2017-008062
Application 11/681,774
claim 14 (Group IV); claim 15 (Group V); and claims 48-57 (Group VI).
See App. Br. 11-30. We address each group of claims below.
Group I
Appellants contend, with respect to claim 1, that the “Examiner does
not clearly and precisely identify what the Examiner is equating to the
‘receiver’ in the [Rakib] reference.” App. Br. 13. Appellants further
contend the combination of Rakib and Ellis fails to disclose the claim 1
limitation “selectively providing a subset of elementary streams
corresponding to said first program that were communicated to the receiver
to a recording device, said subset of elementary streams corresponding to the
first program provided to the recording device including fewer elementary
streams corresponding to said first program than are included in said first
content delivery stream.” Specifically, Appellants argue Ellis “does not
suggest or disclose that less than the full set of elementary streams
corresponding [to] a program will or should be recorded.” App. Br. 17. We
are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
Rakib discloses, at a headend, assembling the components for
multiple requested programs into an MPEG output stream, which is in turn
multiplexed at a bank of cable modems, for example, by frequency division,
code division, or time division, onto a logical channel, which is finally
modulated onto a carrier that is frequency division multiplexed via, for
example, quadrature amplitude modulation. See Rakib, Abstract; col. 8,11.
17-62; col. 18,11. 7-23. Specifically, “if there is a single logical channel
with enough open subchannels to carry all the components of all the
programs and/or services requested by customer N,” the program identifiers
4
Appeal 2017-008062
Application 11/681,774
(PIDs) of the requested programs are sent to a switch in the headend to
create a data stream to send to the transmitter that is transmitting the logical
channel. Rakib, col. 29,11. 14-24. A downstream message is sent to the
customer’s cable modem or gateway (identified by the Examiner as the
claimed “receiver”) indicating “which logical channel and subchannel the
components of the requested program/service will be transmitted on so that
the CPU in the cable modem or gateway can tune the tuner to the right
carrier and demultiplex the components of the requested program/service
from the designated subchannels.” Rakib, col. 27,11. 48-55; see also id. at
col. 29,11. 24-28. MPEG packets for requested programs are “recovered
from the carriers and logical channels indicated in the downstream
messages” at the customer’s cable modem or gateway, and forwarded to the
requesting peripheral, such as a settop decoder. Rakib, col. 18,1. 44-col. 19,
1. 5; col. 19,11. 48^19; Fig. 2.
Ellis discloses selecting a program to record on a local media server
29, which is “a device in the home of the user that is suitable for storing and
playing back programs on demand” (Ellis ^ 109), through the use of a
program guide. Ellis ^ 135, Fig. 14a. The program may be in a digital
format, such as MPEG-2, and may be distributed as one or more digital files.
See Ellis ^ 98. Ellis further discloses, with respect to the programs that may
be recorded:
Suitable video formats may include regular, high definition
television (HDTV), wide screen, narrow screen, etc. The user
may also select the language in which programming audio is
played if available on a digital audio track.
The program guide may include the selected language,
audio format, and video format in record requests. Remote
5
Appeal 2017-008062
Application 11/681,774
media server 24 or local media server 29 may record programs
with only those indicated formats and languages if they are
available as part of program data associated with the programs.
Ellis 172-173. Here, we find Ellis discloses selecting a particular format,
for example, HDTV, for a particular program, and only recording the
program data associated with the program for the selected format. Thus, the
combination of Rakib and Ellis results in a system where a customer can
receive a streaming program comprising multiple components, where the
program’s components are demultiplexed from a channel on which multiple
such programs are multiplexed (Rakib, as described supra), and provide less
than all of the components of the requested program to a recording device
(Ellis ^ 173). We agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 6-7) that this
combination of Rakib and Ellis meets the claim 1 limitation of “selectively
providing a subset of elementary streams corresponding to said first program
that were communicated to the receiver to a recording device, said subset of
elementary streams corresponding to the first program provided to the
recording device including fewer elementary streams corresponding to said
first program than are included in said first content delivery stream.”
Appellants argue Ellis’s paragraph 173 “describes which
PROGRAMS may be recorded;” that is, “[i]f a program satisfies a selected
language or other constraint the program will be recorded while if a
program does not satisfy a specified recording constraint it may not be
recorded.” Reply Br. 4. We disagree with Appellants’ interpretation of
Ellis. Ellis, paragraph 173 describes, in its entirety:
The program guide may include the selected language,
audio format, and video format in record requests. Remote
media server 24 or local media server 29 may record programs
with only those indicated formats and languages if they are
6
Appeal 2017-008062
Application 11/681,774
available as part of program data associated with the programs.
Alternatively, the program guide may include the selected
language, audio format, and video format in playback requests.
Remote media server 24 or local media server 29 may record
programs with all available video and audio formats and
languages and may playback programs only in the selected
formats and language (or any default format or language) when
requested.
Ellis T| 173 (emphases added). The full context of paragraph 173 makes
clear that Ellis describes two options for recording a given program: one
where only the program data corresponding to selected formats or languages
is recorded (which option the Examiner finds discloses recording a subset of
the elementary streams for a program (see Ans. 6)); and one where all
program data is recorded such that selection of formats and languages can be
made upon playback. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
argument that Ellis discloses only recording whole programs. See App. Br.
17-18; Reply Br. 4-5.
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1, and claims 2-11 grouped therewith.
Group II
Appellants rely on the same arguments as for Group I, and
additionally contend the Examiner fails to identify in Ellis “an elementary
stream connection device,” as recited in claim 12. App. Br. 18-24. We are
not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
The “elementary stream connection device” recited in claim 12 is
defined functionally as being “configured to selectively provide a subset of
elementary streams ... to a recording device.” As discussed above
regarding the method of claim 1, we find the combination of Rakib and Ellis
7
Appeal 2017-008062
Application 11/681,774
discloses the feature of selectively providing a subset of elementary streams
to a recording device. In other words, the Examiner’s combined system of
Rakib and Ellis is capable of performing the “configured to” limitation in
claim 12, and we thus find the combination meets the “elementary stream
connection device” limitation in the absence of specific structural limitations
that define over the combined references.
Further, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Ellis fails
to disclose an “elementary stream connection device” that is “coupled to said
receiver.” App. Br. 19-23; Reply Br. 8. The Examiner’s rejection of claim
12 is based on the collective teachings of Rakib and Ellis. See Final Act.
13-14; Ans. 7-8. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference .... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). As discussed above regarding
claim 1, Rakib’s gateway meets the limitation of a “receiver.” Ellis
describes an interactive program guide, which can be installed in user
television equipment 22, including a set-top box (Ellis ^ 63, Fig. 7), that
performs the functions of the “elementary stream connection device,” i.e.,
selectively providing a subset of elementary streams to a recording device.
See Ellis 173. We find the combination of Rakib and Ellis teaches running
Ellis’s interactive program guide on equipment connected to a receiver, such
as the receiver of Rakib’s gateway, so that the program guide would have
access to received program information for selecting and sending program
streams to Ellis’s local media server for recording. See Ellis 128, 139,
8
Appeal 2017-008062
Application 11/681,774
171-173. Accordingly, we find the combination of Rakib and Ellis teaches
“an elementary stream connection device” that is “coupled to said receiver.”
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
12.
Group III
Appellants contend the Examiner fails to identify in Rakib “an
elementary stream demultiplexer,” as recited in claim 13. App. Br. 24-26.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
Rakib discloses “demultiplex[ing] the components of the requested
program/service from the designated subchannels.” Rakib, col. 27,11. 53-
55. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Rakib teaches an “elementary
stream demultiplexer.” See Final Act. 14; Ans. 8. Further, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Rakib fails to teach “an elementary
stream demultiplexer coupled to . . . said elementary stream connection
device.” App. Br. 24-26. As discussed above regarding claim 12, we find
Ellis teaches an “elementary stream connection device” by disclosing an
interactive program guide that can run on user television equipment,
including a set-top box. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand
that in order to perform the function of selecting elementary streams for
recording, the equipment running Ellis’s program guide would need to be
connected to the demultiplexer providing the elementary streams, i.e.,
Rakib’s demultiplexer. Accordingly, we find the combination of Rakib and
Ellis discloses “an elementary stream demultiplexer coupled to . . . said
elementary stream connection device.”
9
Appeal 2017-008062
Application 11/681,774
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
13, and claims 16, 17, and 45^47 grouped therewith.
Group IV
Appellants contend Rakib fails to disclose “an MPEG transport stream
demultiplexer for separating packets corresponding to elementary streams of
said first program from packets providing program stream information,” as
recited in claim 14. App. Br. 26-27. We are not persuaded by Appellants’
arguments.
Rakib discloses creating an MPEG stream of packets for multiple
requested programs. Rakib, col. 18,11.7-11. Rakib also discloses sending
downstream messages on a logical channel dedicated for management and
control traffic indicating which logical channel carries the requested
programs. Rakib, col. 18,11. 24-34. MPEG packets are recovered for the
requested programs at the customer’s cable modem or gateway based on the
downstream messages. Rakib, col. 18,11. 41^47. We find Rakib suggests an
MPEG transport stream demultiplexer because Rakib’s cable modem or
gateway is able to identify and separate MPEG packets for requested
programs from the downstream messages—i.e., the “program stream
information”—indicating the logical channel carrying the MPEG packets.
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
14.
Group V
Appellants contend the combination of Rakib and Ellis fails to
disclose “said elementary stream demultiplexer includes a demultiplexing
control input for receiving program stream information obtained from said
10
Appeal 2017-008062
Application 11/681,774
packets providing program stream information,” as recited in claim 15.1
App. Br. 27-28. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
As noted above, we find Rakib suggests receiving downstream
messages at a customer cable modem or gateway that indicate the logical
channel on which MPEG packets belonging to request programs are carried.
See Rakib, col. 18,11. 7-47. More specifically, the downstream messages
indicate “which logical channel and subchannel the components of the
requested program/service will be transmitted on so that the CPU in the
cable modem or gateway can tune the tuner to the right carrier and
demultiplex the components of the requested program/service from the
designated subchannels.” Rakib, col. 27,11. 50-55. In view of these
teachings, we find Rakib teaches not only an “elementary stream
demultiplexer,” which we found above regarding claim 13, but also suggests
using the downstream messages—i.e., the “program stream information”—
as control input to the demultiplexer. Moreover, we note the claim language
“control input for receiving program stream information obtained from said
packets providing program stream information” does not recite any
particular structure or connection. Rather, the “control input for receiving
program stream information” need only be capable of receiving information
used to control the demultiplexer. Cf. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
1249, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (finding input terminals of a multiplexer that
1 We note that claim 15 recites “said elementary stream demultiplexer
includes;” however, there is no antecedent basis for this limitation. That is,
neither claim 14, from which claim 15 depends, nor claim 12, from which
claim 14 depends, recites an elementary stream demultiplexer. We leave it
for the Examiner to determine, upon further prosecution, whether this lack of
antecedent basis renders claim 15 indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. See MPEP § 2173.05(e).
11
Appeal 2017-008062
Application 11/681,774
were “coupled to receive” certain input variables did not require any specific
input or connection).
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
15.
Group VI
Regarding claims 48-57 in Group VI, Appellants rely on the same
arguments presented for Groups I and II. See App. Br. 28-30. For the same
reasons discussed above regarding Groups I and II, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 48-57.
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-17 and 45-57 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-17
and 45-57 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
12