Lewis Robert. Varney et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 25, 2019

14088358 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2019)

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.
14/088,358 11/23/2013 Lewis Robert Varney 0447-US-U38 8692
21398 7590 07/25/2019
Level 3 Communications, LLC
Attn: Patent Docketing
1025 Eldorado Blvd.
Broomfield, CO 80021
EXAMINER
MEKONEN, TESFU N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2019 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.docketing@level3.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte LEWIS ROBERT VARNEY,
LAURENCE R. LIPSTONE, WILLIAM CROWDER,
ANDREW SWART, and CHRISTOPHER NEWTON
____________________

Appeal 2017-011188
Application 14/088,3581
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.

BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3–8, 11–20, and 22–28, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. A hearing was held on July 3, 2019. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
According to Appellants, “[t]he present invention relates to content
delivery systems and networks, and, more particularly, to verification in

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Level 3
Communications, LLC. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-011188
Application 14/088,358

2
such systems and networks, and is described in the application as filed,
including, e.g., under the heading ‘External Communication.’” Br. 3 (citing
Spec. ¶¶ l333–36).
Illustrative Claim
Claims 1, 3–8, 11–20, and 22–28 are pending; of these, claims 1, 18,
23, and 24 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference:
1. A computer-implemented method, operable in a
content delivery (CD) system comprising multiple CD services,
said CD services running on a plurality of devices, the method
operable on at least one device comprising hardware including
memory and at least one processor, the method comprising:
(A) tracking first information about requests sent from at
least one first CD service in a first collection of CD services to
at least one second CD service in a second collection of CD
services, said first collection of CD services being distinct from
said second collection of CD services, wherein the first collection
of CD services comprise a first CDN and wherein the second
collection of CD services comprise CD services of a party
distinct from an operator of the CDN;
(B) tracking second information from said second
collection of CD services about requests supposedly processed
by the second collection of CD services; and
(C) reconciling the first information with the second
information, wherein said reconciling in (C) is used to one or
more of:
(C)(1) verify information reported by the second
collection of CD services; and
(C)(2) determine possible failure of CD services in
the second collection of CD services.
Appeal 2017-011188
Application 14/088,358

3
References and Rejection2
Claims 1, 3–8, 11–20, and 22–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Kazerani (US 2013/0046664 A1; publ. Feb. 21,
2013). Final Act. 4–16.
Related Matters
Appellants inform us that: “Appeals have been filed or are being filed
in the following applications that share a priority application (Provisional
Application 61/737,072, filed December 13, 2012) with the present
application: 13/802,335, 14/578,402, 13/802,093, 13/802,143, 14/303,389,
14/088,367, 14/088,542, [and] 14/088,356.” Br. 2.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments
Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants
could have made but did not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We adopt the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions as our own, to the extent consistent with our analysis herein.
Appellants argue only claim 1 with particularity. See Br. 10–14.
Accordingly, we review claim 1 and, except for our ultimate conclusion, do
address the remaining claims.

2 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellants’ arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above mentioned Appeal Brief filed March 1,
2017 (“Br.”), as well as the following documents for their respective details:
the Specification (“Spec.”) filed November 23, 2011, the Final Office Action
mailed August 23, 2016 (“Final Act.”), and the Examiner’s Answer mailed
June 29, 2017 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2017-011188
Application 14/088,358

4
Claim 1 recites “(C) reconciling the first information with the second
information, wherein said reconciling in (C) is used to one or more of:
(C)(1) verify information reported by the second collection of CD services;
and (C)(2) determine possible failure of CD services in the second collection
of CD services.” Appellants argue “[n]either of these features is taught or
suggested by Kazerani.” Br. 12. Appellants argue further that
[w]hile Kazerani ¶¶0073 and 0075 discuss logs produced
by caching servers in a federated end-to-end CDN, there is
nothing in Kazerani to teach or suggest using log information to
“verify information reported by the second collection of CD
services,” or to “determine possible failure of CD services in the
second collection of CD services,” as claimed.
Id. at 14 (emphasis omitted). Appellants also argue that “[e]ven if,
arguendo, Kazerani does use log reports to ‘improve the issues reported by
the CDN’ (Fin. Act. 3), this would still not teach” the features recited above.
Id. (referring to Final Act. 3).
The Examiner, however, finds
Kazerani teaches using the generated report from the log
information of transparent caching server and CDN caching
server to verify information regarding the service provided. For
example, the report notifies that the content is requested twice
and providing detail network usage associated with the two
requests ¶0073. At least this teaching[] of Kazerani teaches the
claimed feature of (C) (1). In addition, Kazerani further teaches
determining CD service failure from the report. For example,
combining the log information of transparent caching server with
the CDN caching server will determined the undiscovered
network usage (i.e., CD service failure) during the content
providing process. As [a] result, the undiscovered network usage
will be included in the report. Therefore, all network usage will
[be] considered in the content delivery process (¶0075).
Ans. 4–5.
Appeal 2017-011188
Application 14/088,358

5
Kazerani describes
the log processing server 635 generates a report based on logs
that are aggregated from the transparent caching server 620 and
the CDN caching server 630. Such a report notifies the content
provider customer 640 that its content was requested twice and
the CDN is able to detail the network usage associated with
responding to both requests for the content provider customer's
640 content.
Kazerani ¶ 73.
We agree with the Examiner that this describes at least “verify[ing]
information reported by the second collection of CD services,” as recited in
claim 1. Because claim 1 requires only that “reconciling in (C) is used to
one or more of: (C)(1) verify information reported by the second collection
of CD services; and (C)(2) determine possible failure of CD services in the
second collection of CD services” (emphasis added), we agree with the
Examiner that the argued limitation reads on the disclosure of Kazerani.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1, 3–8, 11–20, and 22–28.
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