THOMSON LICENSING

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 31, 2021

2019006629 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2021)

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. 14/398,571 11/03/2014 Remi Houdaille 2012P00011WOUS 7996 157362 7590 03/31/2021 InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings 4 Research Way 3rd Floor Princeton, NJ 08543 EXAMINER JAKOVAC, RYAN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2445 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2021 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): PatentOPs.US@interdigital.com donna.foligno@interdigital.com patricia.verlangieri@interdigital.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte REMI HOUDAILLE, STEPHANE GOUACHEE, and CHRISTOPHE DELAUNAY Appeal 2019-006629 Application 14/398,571 Technology Center 2400 Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, ERIC B. CHEN, and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7–13, and 15–17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as INTERDIGITAL MADISON PATENT HOLDINGS. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-006629 Application 14/398,571 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a “[m]ethod and apparatus for providing a plurality of transcoded content streams.” Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of offering a set of versions of a content stream with different bit-rates to a client, wherein the method comprises: sending to the client a prepared manifest part describing an offered set of versions of the content stream; receiving a request from the client for one version of the content stream, listed in the prepared manifest part, said one requested version having a specific bit-rate; dynamically selecting versions to be offered to the client in a new manifest part wherein differences between bit-rates of offered versions neighbouring said one requested version associated with the specific bit-rate are dynamically adapted depending on the stability of bit-rates of versions previously requested by the client, the stability depending on a number of requests for a bit-rate different than a currently delivered bit- rate requested during a period of time, said new manifest comprising: bit-rates of offered versions close to a current target bit-rate, and bit-rates of offered versions far away from the current target bit-rate; and sending to the client the new manifest part. Appeal 2019-006629 Application 14/398,571 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Igarashi US 2011/0093617 A1 Apr. 21, 2011 Amir US 2013/0054728 A1 Feb. 28, 2013 McHugh US 2013/0091249 A1 Apr. 11, 2013 REJECTIONS Claims 1–5, 8–13, 16, and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over McHugh and Amir. Final Act. 5–8. Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over McHugh, Amir, and Igarashi. Final Act. 9. OPINION The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–5, 8–13, 16, and 17 over McHugh and Amir The Examiner finds McHugh and Amir teach all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 4–7. The Examiner finds McHugh teaches most limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach “the stability depending on a number of requests for a bit-rate different than a currently delivered bit-rate requested during a period of time” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 6 (citing McHugh ¶¶ 10–11, 24–30). The Examiner finds Amir teaches “the stability depending on a number of requests for a bit-rate different than a currently delivered bit-rate requested during a period of time” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 6 (citing Amir ¶ 81). The Examiner reasons “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Amir. The motivation to do so is that the teachings Appeal 2019-006629 Application 14/398,571 4 of Amir would have been advantageous in terms of amending manifest files based on popularity of bit rates.” Final Act. 6 (citing Amir ¶ 81). Appellant presents the following principal arguments: i. “McHugh appears to only propose the removal of the highest bit rate . . . so that the client would not be able to request said highest bit rate.” Appeal Br. 9; see also Appeal Br. 10 (“McHugh appears to only propose to remove the highest bit rate when a congestion level of the network exceeds a threshold.”), Reply Br. 3–7. At no point or anywhere in the teachings of McHugh is there a consideration of differences between bit-rates of offered versions neighbouring said one requested version associated with the specific bitrate are dynamically adapted depending on the stability of bit-rates of versions previously requested by the client, as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 9–10; see also Appeal Br. 10 (“[I]n McHugh, there is no selection of versions (bit rates) offered in a manifest depending on the stability of bit-rates of versions previously requested by the client in the sense of claim 1.”), Reply Br. 3–7. “There is entirely no teaching or suggestion in McHugh that the new manifest comprises bit-rates of offered versions close to a current target bit-rate and/or bit-rates of offered versions far away from the current target bit-rate, as recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 7. McHugh looks for solving the problem of lack of available bandwidth in a network when all of the streaming clients of the network send requests to an adaptive streaming server to receive the highest quality segments of a video content, whereas the pending application looks for reducing the size of a manifest sent by a server to a client. Appeal 2019-006629 Application 14/398,571 5 Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 8–9. ii. The cited portion of Amir appears to merely teach that some bit-rates which were not requested by users during a period of time are not included in the manifest. Put another way, Amir proposed to remove unused bit-rates from the manifest. By contrast, in one example of the claim’s object, the stability of bit-rates of versions previously requested by the client is used to dynamically adapt the differences between bit-rates of offered versions neighboring one requested version. Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 7–8. We do not see any reversible error in the Examiner’s findings. We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. McHugh discloses, “[a]n adaptive streaming server and a method are described herein for determining if a congestion level within a network exceeds a predetermined threshold and when this occurs then one or more lower bit rate segments of a content stream will be transmitted to a client.” McHugh, Abstract. McHugh further discloses, when the congestion level exceeds the predetermined threshold, “the adaptive streaming server 206 (e.g., processing unit 418) is configured to generate an updated master manifest 440 that for example does not include the first child manifest 430a but does include the other child manifests 430b, 430c and 430d (see FIG. 4E).” McHugh ¶ 29. Thus, we find McHugh teaches “dynamically selecting versions to be offered to the client in a new manifest part” (claim 1) because McHugh discloses an updated master manifest. See McHugh, Fig. 4E (updated master manifest 440). Appeal 2019-006629 Application 14/398,571 6 We interpret McHugh’s updated master manifest as reasonably describing “wherein differences between bit-rates of offered versions neighbouring said one requested version associated with the specific bit-rate are dynamically adapted depending on the stability” (claim 1) because McHugh discloses an updated master manifest depending on the network congestion level, and by omitting a previously available bit rate, the differences are adapted at least in the sense that one of the differences no longer exists. See McHugh ¶ 29, Fig. 4E (updated master manifest 440). We interpret McHugh’s network congestion level (McHugh ¶ 29) as reasonably describing “stability of bit-rates of versions previously requested by the client” (claim 1) because increased congestion corresponds to decreased stability. We further find McHugh teaches “bit-rates of offered versions close to a current target bit-rate, and bit-rates of offered versions far away from the current target bit-rate” (claim 1) because McHugh describes a plurality of offered versions in the updated master manifest, which thereby includes versions having close bit rates and versions having far away bit rates from the current target bit rate. McHugh ¶ 29 Amir discloses a “[s]ystem and method for efficient caching and delivery of adaptive bitrate streaming.” Amir, Title. Amir further discloses “the streaming cache can determine that certain bit rates are not requested by users (during a predefined period), these bit rates can be high bit rates, low bit rates and the like. The manifest file can be updated not to include these un-popular bit rates.” Amir ¶ 81. Thus, we find Amir discloses dynamically adapting bit rates of offered versions “depending on a number of requests for a bit-rate different Appeal 2019-006629 Application 14/398,571 7 than a currently delivered bit-rate requested during a period of time” (claim 1) because removing unpopular bit rates from the updated manifest considers the number of requests for the to be removed bit rate in order to determine that such a bit rate is unpopular. See Amin ¶ 81. In light of Amir, we determine a skilled artisan would have modified McHugh to dynamically adapting bit rates of offered versions “depending on a number of requests for a bit-rate different than a currently delivered bit- rate requested during a period of time” (claim 1). The Examiner has articulated a reason to combine McHugh and Amir that is rational on its face and supported by evidence drawn from the record, and the Examiner’s reasoning remains unrebutted. See Final Act. 6 (citing Amir ¶ 81) (“[T]he teachings of Amir would have been advantageous in terms of amending manifest files based on popularity of bit rates.”). We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 9 and 17, which are not separately argued with particularity. See Appeal Br. 12– 13; see also Reply Br. 9. Regarding dependent claims 2–5, 8, 10–13, and 16, Appellant argues the Examiner’s explanations are insufficient. See Appeal Br. 13–14; see also Reply Br. 9–11. We disagree. “[A]ll that is required of the [O]ffice to meet its prima facie burden of production is to set forth the statutory basis of the rejection and the reference or references relied upon in a sufficiently articulate and informative manner as to meet the notice requirement of [35 U.S.C.] § 132.” In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Appeal 2019-006629 Application 14/398,571 8 In the Final Action on pages 7–8, the Examiner refers to claim 2–5, 8, 10–13, and 16 and refers to McHugh, ¶¶ 25–29. See Final Act. 7–8. We determine the Examiner has met the burden of production. In short, the Examiner’s reason for the rejection is that the Examiner determines McHugh, ¶¶ 25–29 teaches the claimed subject matter. Appellant does not provide any discussion of the cited paragraphs of McHugh, nor does Appellant offer any explanation as to why the reasons for the rejection cannot be understood from the record. See Appeal Br. 13–14; see also Reply Br. 9–11. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–5, 8, 10–13, and 16, which are not separately argued with particularity. See Appeal Br. 12–14; see also Reply Br. 9–11. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 7 and 15 over McHugh, Amir, and Igarashi Appellant does not present separate arguments for claims 7 and 15. See Appeal Br. 8–14; see also Reply Br. 2–11. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 15 for the same reasons discussed above. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7–13, and 15–17 is affirmed. Appeal 2019-006629 Application 14/398,571 9 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 8–13, 16, 17 103(a) McHugh, Amir 1–5, 8–13, 16, 17 7, 15 103(a) McHugh, Amir, Igarashi 7, 15 Overall Outcome 1–5, 7–13, 15–17 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED