Ex Parte Tarbox et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2018

13857539 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/857,539 04/05/2013
43471 7590 11/30/2018
ARRIS Enterprises, LLC
Legal Dept - Docketing
101 Tournament Drive
HORSHAM, PA 19044
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brian J. Tarbox
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.
CS40155 3323
EXAMINER
NGUYEN,ANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2018 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 BRIAN J. TARBOX, ROBERT E. MACK, and
ALBERT F. ELCOCK
Appeal 2017-011639
Application 13/857 ,539
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 seek our review under U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 This decision uses the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the
Specification, filed April 5, 2013; "Final Act." for the Final Office Action,
mailed September 22, 2016; "App. Br." for the Appeal Brief, filed June 5,
2017; "Ans." for the Examiner's Answer, mailed July 21, 2017; and "Reply
Br." for the Reply Brief, filed September 20, 2017.
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as ARRIS Enterprises. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-011639
Application 13/857,539
BACKGROUND
Appellants' invention relates to a filtered adaptive streaming playlist
of stored video content in a content delivery network. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A system, in a content delivery network, for adaptive streaming
playlist filtering, the system comprising:
an origin server, communicatively coupled to the content
delivery network, and configured for receiving a first adaptive
streaming play list from a packager communicatively coupled
to the content delivery network, wherein the first adaptive
streaming playlist is for delivery of a plurality of stored chunks
of a selected audio/video (AV) content to an adaptive streaming
client in a client device, the first adaptive streaming playlist
comprising retrieval information corresponding to a first
plurality of stored chunks of the selected AV content;
a filtering device, communicatively coupled to the
content delivery network, configured for using retrieval
information in the first adaptive streaming playlist, wherein the
retrieval information corresponds to a chunk of the selected AV
content, for applying one or more rules of a personalized rule
set associated with the client device to the chunk of the selected
AV content, to determine whether the chunk is in compliance
with the personalized rule set;
a play list rebuilder, communicatively coupled to the
content delivery network, and responsive to the filtering device
for assembling a filtered adaptive streaming playlist,
wherein retrieval information is omitted for chunks that
are not in compliance with the personalized rule
set and corresponding retrieval information for
2
Appeal 2017-011639
Application 13/857,539
chunks from an alternate collection of chunks are
substituted therefor, and
wherein the filtered adaptive streaming playlist
comprises retrieval information
corresponding to a second plurality of stored
chunks for the selected AV content, wherein
each chunk of the second plurality of stored
chunks is in compliance with the
personalized rule set;
the origin server further configured to provide to the
adaptive streaming client, via the content delivery network, in
response to a request for the selected AV content from the
client device, the filtered adaptive streaming play list in place of
the first adaptive streaming play list, for enabling retrieval by
the client device, via the content delivery network, of a filtered
rendition of the selected AV content in compliance with the
personalized rule set.
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 3-14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being obvious over Antonov (US 2013/0339500 Al, published Dec.
19, 2013), Ostrover (US 2006/0095410 Al, published May 4, 2006), and
Braness (US 2013/0051554 Al, published Feb. 28, 2013). Final Act. 4--
17.
2. Claims 2, 10, 3 15, and 184 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Antonov, Ostrover, Braness, and Girouard (US
2005/0071888 Al, published Mar. 31, 2005). Id. at 17-19.
3 Claim 10 is included in both rejections. Because we affirm the rejection of
claim 10 as obvious over Antonov, Ostrover, and Braness, we find it
unnecessary to reach a decision about the cumulative rejection of claim 10
3
Appeal 2017-011639
Application 13/857,539
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence in the
record. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential).
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence
presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis in our analysis below.
Claims 1, 3-14, 16, 17, 19, and 20
Appellants argue claims 1, 3-14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 together as a
group. See App. Br. 7-10. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of 37
C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv), we limit our discussion to independent claim 1.
Claims 3-14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds Antonov teaches the bulk of the claimed
limitations. Specifically, the Examiner points to Antonov as teaching the
claimed origin server, filtering device, and play list rebuilder. Final Act. 4--5
(citing Antonov ,r,r 5, 7, 17, 20, 33, 43). The Examiner, however, turns to
Ostrover as teaching the limitation "wherein retrieval information is omitted
for chunks that are not in compliance with the personalized rule set and
corresponding retrieval information for chunks from an alternate collection
as obvious over Antonov, Ostrover, Braness, and Girouard. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.50(a)(l).
4 The Examiner's heading on page 17 states that "[c]laims 2, 10, 15, and 8
are rejected." Final Act. 17. We presume this to be a typographical error
because the section actually explains the rejections of claims 2, 10, 15, and
18. Id. at 17-18.
4
Appeal 2017-011639
Application 13/857,539
of chunks are substituted therefor," (the "retrieval information limitation").
Id. at 5 (citing Ostrover ,r 104).
Appellants argue that Antonov fails to teach or suggest "a
personalized rule set associated with the client device." App. Br. 9
( emphasis omitted). According to Appellants, "[ n Jo where does Antonov
teach that ... traffic-shaping rules are personalized ( e.g. associated with a
person), or that such a set of rules is specifically 'associated with the client
device' that sends the rules in its request." Id. at 9-10 (citing Antonov ,r,r 7,
19, 21 ). The Examiner responds by stating that Antonov discloses a client
device requesting a video stream using a URL that includes parameters
defining a set of rules to be applied by the traffic-shaping service. Ans. 3--4
(citing Antonov ,r,r 26-27, 33, 41--42). According to the Examiner, because
"the rules [included in the URL] are defined and sent from the client device,
the rule is a personalized rule set." Id. at 4. The Examiner also points to
Ostrover' s user preferences and Braness' s playback server filters as teaching
filtering portion of content video based on user preferences associated with
the client device. Id. We agree with the Examiner that Antonov, Ostrover,
and Braness all disclose a personalized rule set associated with the client
device.
Appellants also argue that Ostrover does not teach or suggest the
retrieval information limitation because "Ostrover teaches masking or
replacing content itself, and fails to teach omitting, masking, or replacing
retrieval information for content." App. Br. 8. According to Appellants,
in the claimed subject matter "only retrieval information is omitted, and
therefore the corresponding chunks of non-compliant actual content are
never transmitted to, and never retrieved by, a client rendering device." Id.
5
Appeal 2017-011639
Application 13/857,539
Appellants argue that "'[c]ontent' and 'retrieval information for content'
cannot reasonably be equated to one another." Reply Br. 2.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
they attack the references individually, while the Examiner relies on the
combined disclosures in the references to reject the independent claims. See
Final Act. 5-6. Where a rejection rests on the combined disclosures in the
references, an appellant cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking the
references individually. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the combined disclosures in Antonov and Ostrover
teach the disputed retrieval information omission and substitution limitation.
See Final Act. 4---6; Ans. 2-3.
Specifically, Antonov teaches using a playlist of a plurality of
portions of video content for a requested video stream. Antonov ,r,r 5-7.
This playlist is adjusted according to a set of rules and the adjusted play list
is sent to the client, which the client uses, during playback, to request
particular portions video content. Id. ,r,r 5-7, 20. Antonov states that "[t]he
playlist includes information that allows client 104 to request each portion."
Id. ,r 20. Thus, Anotonov's playlist information corresponds to the claimed
"retrieval information."
Ostrover teaches "filtering and related processing [ of multimedia
information] in accordance with the receiving device and/or user capabilities
and/or user preferences, using a PVR as the filtering means." Ostrover ,r 12.
To match a user's preferences, particular segments of the multimedia content
may be discarded, replaced, or transformed. Id. ,r,r 86, 98, 104. For example
objectionable segments may be masked by "blurring or scrambling" or
replaced with sanitized material "received from external sources" or
6
Appeal 2017-011639
Application 13/857,539
"generated internally." Id. ,r 104. Thus, Ostrover teaches "omit[ting]
chunks that are not in compliance with the personalized rule set" and
substituting "chunks from an alternative collection."
Appellants argue that because Ostrover teaches masking or replacing
content itself instead the retrieval information of a play list, the Examiner's
rejection is in error. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2. This argument is unavailing
because the Examiner relies on Antonov for its disclosure of playlist
information to refer to particular portions of content and Ostrover for its
disclosure of omitting and replacing content based on user preferences.
Final Act. 4---6. We agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have found obvious the retrieval information limitation
based on the combined disclosures of Antonov and Ostrover. See id. at. 6.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-
14, 16, 17, 19, and 20.
Claims 2, 10, 15, and 18
The Examiner rejects claims 2, 10, 3 15, and 18 over a combination of
Antonov, Ostrover, Braness, and Girouard. Final Act. 17-19. For each of
these claims, Appellants rely on the same arguments made with respect to
claim 1. App. Br. 10. These arguments however, are not persuasive for the
reasons discussed above. Consequently, we find Appellants' arguments do
not show error in the Examiner's factual findings and the conclusion of
obviousness of claims 2, 15, and 18.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20.
7
Appeal 2017-011639
Application 13/857,539
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.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8