Ex Parte Wirick et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 23, 2018

13857519 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/857,519 04/05/2013 43471 7590 ARRIS Enterprises, LLC Legal Dept - Docketing 101 Tournament Drive HORSHAM, PA 19044 03/27/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kevin S Wirick 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. CS40941 5349 EXAMINER MONTOYA,OSCHTAI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2421 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/27/2018 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 KEVIN S. WIRICK, MICHAEL A. CASTELOES, and WENDELL SUN Appeal2017-010407 Application 13/857,519 Technology Center 2400 Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-18. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over Walker (US 2012/0210382 Al; Aug. 16, 2012) and Wang (US 2006/0188020 Al; Aug. 24, 2006). Non-Final Act. 3-5. Claims 4--6 and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious Over Walker, Wang, and Meier (US 2011/0299448 Al; Dec. 8, 2011). Non- Final Act. 5-6. Appeal2017-010407 Application 13/857,519 Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over Walker, Wang, Meier, and Swenson (US 2012/0265901 Al; Oct. 18, 2012). Non-Final Act. 6. We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to "network digital video recorders (nDVRs)." Spec. i-f 1. Claim I is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A method comprising: receiving, at a network digital video recorder in a digital video recorder system, a request to record content; receiving, at a network digital video recorder, the requested content in both a first format having a first bit-rate and resolution and a second format having a second bit-rate and resolution; storing, via the network digital video recorder, the requested content in the first format having the first bit-rate and resolution; storing, via the network digital video recorder, the requested content in the second format having the second bit-rate and resolution; deleting, from the network digital video recorder, the requested content in the second format having the second bit-rate and resolution; receiving a request for playback of the requested content to a requesting subscriber's device in at least one of: a third format having a third bit-rate and resolution, or the second format having the second bit-rate and resolution after deletion from storage of the requested content in the second format; and in response to the request, regenerating from the first format having the first bit-rate and resolution the content in the second format having the second bit-rate and resolution or the third format having the third bit-rate and resolution on demand via an on demand transcoder in the network digital video recorder system. 2 Appeal2017-010407 Application 13/857,519 ANALYSIS THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-3 AND 7 OVER WALKER AND WANG Contentions The Examiner finds Walker and Wang teach all limitations of claim 1. Non-Final Act. 3--4. In particular, the Examiner finds Walker teaches all limitations of claim 1, except for different formats having different bit-rates and resolutions, for which the Examiner finds is taught by Wang. Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Walker i-fi-122-23, 27--43, 49-53, Wang i-fi-129-31 ). The Examiner reasons "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Walker's method with the teachings of Wang. The motivation would have been to be able to always provide the best possible quality video for the benefit of giving the viewer good quality of service." Non-Final Act. 4. Appellants contend "the primary points of dispute revolve around whether Walker 'regenerates' in the manner claimed and more specifically, whether Walker and/or Wang teach or suggest deleting original versions of received content as recited in the claims." App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2- 4. In support of these contentions, Appellants present, for example, the following arguments: "Because Walker's 'reconstitution' does not relate to regenerating a second format having a second bit-rate and resolution from a first format having a first bit-rate and resolution, Walker's reconstitution does not correspond to the claimed regenerating." App. Br. 8. When applying the claim terms consistently, it is clear that the claimed manipulation needed to access a format, e.g., on demand transcoding to provide a format of the content that is not stored 3 Appeal2017-010407 Application 13/857,519 (e.g., a third format or the second format previously deleted) is not relevant to Walker's system, since Walker has available each original content received. If it is received in Walker, it is stored and only duplicates are de-duplicated. App. Br. 9; see also App. Br. 9 ("the premise in Walker is that at least one of every, single received content is stored in an identical form in storage."). "At best, Wang supports Walker's manner of storing at least one of every received content in duplicate and only deleting exact copies. Incorporating Wang's formats to modify Walker would simply mean that there is always at least one copy of every format received in storage, so a duplicate copy can be reconstituted (an essential feature of Walker)." App. Br. 10 (citing Wang i129). In response, in the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner elaborates "Walker teaches that the reconstituted copy can be the same as the original copy or additionally that the content can be coded or transcoded to a format supported by the requesting device upon a request." Ans. 2-3 (citing Walker i152). The Examiner further explains "Walker teaches that thousands of original copies are deleted from the active storage once they are recorded in the archive storage." Ans. 3 (citing Walker step 405, Fig. 4A, i1i122, 23, 43). Our Review We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential). 4 Appeal2017-010407 Application 13/857,519 Contrary to Appellants arguments, we find Walker's disclosures are not so strict as to require reconstitution (following deduplication) to require that the reconstituted copy be the exact same format as the original copy (or copies). Walker discloses "Content may be initially recorded to an active storage device, with individual duplicate copies recorded for each requesting user, and subsequently archived to an archive storage device. For playback, the content can be reconstituted into the active storage device prior to delivery to the requesting user." Walker Abstract. Walker discloses "the transfer operation can include a deduplication operation. A deduplication operation can seek to reduce the amount of storage space needed to store duplicate copies of a particular program." Walker i-f 43. Walker discloses "the reconstituted copy can also be coded or transcoded to a format supported by the requesting device." Walker i-f 52. Taken together by one of ordinary skill in the art, these disclosures suggest that the reconstituted copy (following deduplication) may be transcoded to a format supported by the requesting device. See Walker i-f 52. That is, the end result in Walker's reconstitution process provides regeneration to a format supported by the requesting device, and is not limited to the exact same format as the original copy (or copies). Thus, Walker teaches, as recited in claim 1, "in response to the request, regenerating from the first format[]" (In Walker, the format of the content on the archive storage device.) "the content in the second format[] or the third format[]" (In Walker, the format supported by the requesting device) "on demand via an on demand transcoder in the network digital video recorder system." See Walker Abstract, i-fi-143, 52. 5 Appeal2017-010407 Application 13/857,519 Regarding bit-rates and resolutions, Wang discloses "[i]t is therefore desirable in many applications to provide a system in which multiple resolution and/or multiple bit rate versions of a given video signal can be compressed and stored." Wang i-f 29. Thus, Wang teaches that different formats may include different bit rates and resolutions. The Examiner's reason to combine the references is rational on its face, and supported by evidence drawn from the record. See Non Final Act. 4; see also Walker i-f 52 ("the reconstituted copy can also be coded or transcoded to a format supported by the requesting device."). When this teaching is combined with Walker, Walker and Wang collectively teach, as recited in claim 1, in response to the request, regenerating from the first format having the first bit-rate and resolution the content in the second format having the second bit-rate and resolution or the third format having the third bit-rate and resolution on demand via an on demand transcoder in the network digital video recorder system. Contrary to Appellants' arguments, we do not agree that combining Walker and Wang would require a copy of every format being kept in Walker's archive storage. As discussed above, Walker teaches that reconstitution is not limited to the exact same format as the original copy (or copies). See Walker i-f 52. With this knowledge, a skilled artisan would have understood that when Walker is modified to incorporate Wang's various formats, a copy of every format received would not be required for the archive storage because the various formats could be recreated during reconstitution, which is not limited to the exact same format as the original copy. 6 Appeal2017-010407 Application 13/857,519 Lastly, regarding claim 1 's recitation of "deleting, from the network digital video recorder, the requested content in the second format having the second bit-rate and resolution," Walkers deduplication teaches this limitation. More particularly, because a skilled artisan would have understood that various formats could be recreated during reconstitution as discussed above, the skilled artisan would have understood that Walker teaches the claimed "deleting" step. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3, and 7, which are not separately argued with particularity. See App. Br. 11. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 4---6 AND 8-17 OVER WALKER, WANG, AND MEIER Appellants do not present any separate arguments for the patentability of claims 4--6 and 8-17. See App. Br. 11. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4--6 and 8- 17 for the same reasons discussed above. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 18 OVER WALKER, WANG, MEIER, AND SWENSON Appellants do not present any separate arguments for the patentability of claim 18. See App. Br. 11. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 18 for the same reasons discussed above. 7 Appeal2017-010407 Application 13/857,519 ORDER The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-18 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l). AFFIRMED 8