Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2012

11433142 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte YUNCHUAN WANG, WEI SHU, and MICHAEL HER
____________________

Appeal 2010-005920
Application 11/433,142
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and MICHAEL
J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-005920
Application 11/433,142

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to an on-demand video
delivery system using the Internet protocol (Spec. 1, ¶1. Technical Field;
Abstract).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claim
Claim 31 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
31. A method of on-demand video delivery, comprising:

storing media signals representing humanly perceptible
video programs at a program center;

converting the media signals into coded media data
suitable for streaming over the Internet;

establishing at a delivery server an unicast link over the
Internet with a set top box (STB) requesting a video program,
and streaming the requested video program over the Internet
using Internet Protocol (IP); and

receiving the requested video program streamed over the
Internet at the requesting STB, converting the coded media data
to humanly perceptible video, and presenting the humanly
perceptible video to play on a television while maintaining
communications with the delivery server over the unicast link
Appeal 2010-005920
Application 11/433,142

3
including receiving packets of downstream coded media data
from the respective delivery server.

References
Midani US 2005/0289623 A1 Dec. 29, 2005
Preisman US 2006/0123451 A1 Jun. 8, 2006
Furlong US 2006/0235800 A1 Oct. 19, 2006

Rejections
(1) Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Furlong.
(2) Claims 1, 13, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Furlong and Midani.
(3) Claims 7-10, 22, and 28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Furlong, Midani, and
Preisman.

Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-6, 11, 12, 14-18, 20,
21, 23-27, 29, and 30 (see App. Br. 10-15). Except for our ultimate
decision, we do not further address these claims herein.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS

Based upon Appellants’ arguments, we address claim 31 separately.
(See App. Br. 6-8).
Appeal 2010-005920
Application 11/433,142

4
Based upon Appellants’ arguments, we select representative claim 1
to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 1, 13, and 19. (See
App. Br. 8-10).
Based upon Appellants’ arguments, we address claims 7-10, 22, and
28 as a group. (See App. Br. 10-11).
We accept Appellants’ grouping of the claims. We have only
considered those arguments that Appellants actually raised in the Briefs.
Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs
have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2009).

ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 102(e): claim 31
Appellants argue their invention is not anticipated by Furlong (App.
Br. 6). Specifically, Appellants argue one of ordinary skill in the art reading
Furlong would readily appreciate that any video on demand (VoD) content
to be broadcasted over multicast links is for simultaneous mass consumption
and viewing, while VoD services including licenses may be communicated
to individual subscribers via a unicast link (App. Br. 6-7). According to
Appellants, VoD and VoD services are described interchangeably (id.).
Appellants further argue “it is abundantly clear that the ‘VoD’ referenced in
the Examiner's cited sentence is ‘VoD services’ that is transported via IP
unicast and not VoD program content for viewing by the subscriber.” (id.).
Appellants insist the term “VoD services” does not include “VoD content”
Appeal 2010-005920
Application 11/433,142

5
since VoD services are discussed tangentially and no protocols for VoD
content delivery are discussed (Reply Br. 8-9).

Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding Furlong discloses
“establishing … an unicast link over the Internet… and streaming the
requested video program over the Internet” and “maintaining
communications …over the unicast link” as recited in claim 31?

ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings. Appellants
would have us interpret Furlong as differentiating between VoD services
(and VoD) and VoD content; however, Appellants have not identified any
disclosure in Furlong that persuades us of this difference. Instead, we find
an ordinary artisan would interpret VoD services (and the abbreviated
“VoD”) as including the content.
Specifically, Furlong describes that the network “includes all routers,
switches, long haul and metropolitan transport and access systems necessary
for transporting the video streams and the associated management and
license data” (Spec. 3, [0034])(emphasis ours). Furlong continues that the
network thus “supports transport of video-on-IP unicast and multicast
content” (id.)(emphasis ours).
Furlong additionally describes that a single permanent virtual channel
is for use by all available services, such as broadcast TV and Video-on-
Demand (VoD) (Spec. 3, [0036])(emphasis ours). Furlong continues that
VoD services preferably follow a distributed architecture with multiple
servers carrying the newest and most popular content (Spec. 3,
Appeal 2010-005920
Application 11/433,142

6
[0037])(emphasis ours). This paragraph further describes enabling clients of
media manager to view the content provided by the open media platform
(OMP)(id.)(emphasis ours).
Thus, in paragraph 41, when Furlong describes IP unicast and User
Datagram Protocol (UDP) is used to transport VoD from the servers to the
terminals, we find VoD refers to the content and the associated management
and license data. The following sentence in Furlong does not limit VoD but
instead, recites functions operational teams may perform.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants that VoD services
do not include VoD content nor that VoD does not include VoD content.
Instead, we find an ordinary artisan upon reading Furlong would interpret
VoD services (and VoD) as including VoD content.
It follows Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in
finding Furlong discloses the invention as recited in claim 31. Therefore,
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for
anticipation by Furlong.

ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1, 13, and 19
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Furlong and
Midani (App. Br. 8-10). Specifically, Appellants contend neither Furlong
nor Midani teaches “delivery of VoD content via a unicast link” (App. Br.
9). Additionally, Appellants contend Midani does not cure Furlong’s
deficiency and instead teaches away (id.). According to Appellants, VoD
traffic via unicast is discouraged (id.). As a result, Appellants argue the
Appeal 2010-005920
Application 11/433,142

7
Examiner has not articulated any reasoning with a rational underpinning
(id.).

Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding (i) the combination of
Furlong and Midani teaches or suggests “an unicast link over the Internet
with a respective one of a plurality of set top boxes (STBs)” as recited in
claim 1 and (ii) Midani teaches away from the present invention?

ANALYSIS
As set forth above in Issue 1, Appellants have not persuaded us that
Furlong does not disclose “an unicast link over the Internet with a set top
box (STB).” Further, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that
Midani teaches away from the present invention. Specifically, Midani
teaches Video-on-Demand (VoD) and near-video-on-demand (NVoD) are
prime video services that 20% of the subscribes can afford or desire (pg. 1,
[0008]). Midani additionally teaches “[i]t is well understood in the industry
that a pure one-way broadcast model is not sufficient for either the carriers
or the MSOs and that a combination of broadcast and interactive unicast
video services is required for a credible video service offering” (id.). Midani
next describes the question is whether to turn broadcast channels into end-
to-end unicast channels. (id.).
Appellants point to paragraph 81 of Midani as supporting the
“teaching away” argument; however, Midani discusses avoiding inherent
inefficiencies of unicasting all the video channels. Midani then discusses
Appeal 2010-005920
Application 11/433,142

8
avoiding inherent inefficiencies of such a system by RF-modulating the
broadcast video (pg. 7, [0081]).
Appellants further references to paragraphs 52 and 55 (Reply Br. 12)
also do not persuade us Midani teaches away from the present invention.
Instead, paragraph 54 teaches the video processing engine may include a
path to accommodate any unicast video stream (pg. 5, [0054]). Paragraph 55
sets forth one embodiment and further does not teach or suggest the user-
selected and switched video program streams are sent via multicast as
argued by Appellants – only that the user-selected and switch video program
streams are sent downstream to the subscribers.
Thus, based on Midani’s teachings and suggestions, we do not find
Midani discourages or discredits a unicast link over the Internet. It follows
Midani does not teach away from the present invention.
Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of
Furlong and Midani teaches or suggests “an unicast link over the Internet
with a respective one of a plurality of set top boxes (STBs)” as recited in
independent claim 1 and commensurately recited independent claims 13 and
19, not separately argued. We further are not persuaded Midani teaches
away from the present invention. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claims 1, 13, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
Furlong and Midani.

Appeal 2010-005920
Application 11/433,142

9
ISSUE 3
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 7-10, 22, and 28
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Furlong, Midani,
and Preisman because Preisman does not cure the deficiencies of Furlong
and Midani (App. Br. 11).
ANALYSIS
As set forth above in Issues 1 and 2, Appellants have not persuaded us
the Examiner erred. Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the
combination of Furlong, Midani, and Preisman teaches or suggests the
invention as recited in claims 7-10, 22, and 28. Therefore, the Examiner did
not err in rejecting claims 7-10, 22, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Furlong, Midani, and Preisman.

ISSUE 4
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 2-6, 11, 12, 14-18, 20, 21, 23-27, 29, and 30
Appellants have not separately argued the dependent claims and thus,
these claims fall with their respective independent claims.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Furlong is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 13, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Furlong and Midani is affirmed.
Appeal 2010-005920
Application 11/433,142

10
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 7-10, 22, and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Furlong, Midani, and Preisman is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 2-6, 11, 12, 14-18, 20, 21, 23-27,
29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are 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)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

tj