THOMSON LICENSINGDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 6, 20212019006821 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/901,054 12/27/2015 Stephane GOUACHE 2013P00024WOUS 1617 24374 7590 04/06/2021 VOLPE KOENIG DEPT. ICC 30 SOUTH 17TH STREET -18TH FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 EXAMINER HUANG, KAYLEE J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2447 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/06/2021 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): eoffice@volpe-koenig.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte STEPHANE GOUACHE, CHARLINE TAIBI, and REMI HOUDAILLE ____________ Appeal 2019-006821 Application 14/901,054 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–12. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims 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. Appellant identifies INTERDIGITAL CE PATENT HOLDINGS as the real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 3.) Appeal 2019-006821 Application 14/901,054 2 THE INVENTION Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to adapting the behavior of a cache located along the transmission path between a client terminal and one or several servers. (Spec. 1:1–7.) Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method for adapting behavior of a cache configured to be located along a transmission path between a client terminal and a server, the client terminal being able to receive from the server content parts of a multimedia content, comprising: upon request, by a first client terminal, for a content part not stored yet in the cache, storing said content part in said cache and recording at least one characteristic of reception by the cache of said content part received from the server, before transmission to the first client terminal; upon subsequent request, by a second client terminal, for the same content part as the one previously stored in said cache upon request from the first client terminal, controlling a data sending rate, based on the recorded characteristic of the reception of said content part by the cache, while delivering the stored content part from said cache to said second client terminal. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims Appendix.) REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1–3 and 10–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable by Ma et al (US 2013/0097309 A1, pub. Apr. 18, 2013) (hereinafter “Ma”) and Zuberi et al (US 2007/0248100 A1, pub. Oct. 25, 2007) (hereinafter “Zuberi”). (Final Act. 4.) The Examiner rejected claims 4–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable by Ma, Zuberi, and Ferguson et al (US 8,321,494 B2, iss. Nov. 27, 2012) (hereinafter “Ferguson”). (Final Act. 7.) Appeal 2019-006821 Application 14/901,054 3 The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable by Ma, Zuberi, and Luna et al (US 2013/0145010 A1, pub. June 6, 2013) (hereinafter “Luna”). (Final Act. 9.) The Examiner rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable by Ma, Zuberi, Luna, and Bugenhagen (US 2009/0248864 A1, pub. Oct. 1, 2009). (Final Act. 10.) ISSUE ON APPEAL Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal and Reply Briefs present the following issue:2 Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Ma and Zuberi teaches or suggests the limitations of upon request, by a first client terminal, for a content part not stored yet in the cache, storing said content part in said cache and recording at least one characteristic of reception by the cache of said content part received from the server, before transmission to the first client terminal, and controlling a data sending rate, based on the recorded characteristic of the reception of said content part by the cache, while delivering the stored content part from said cache to said second client terminal, as recited in independent claim 1, and the commensurate limitation recited in independent claim 10. (Appeal Br. 8–10.) 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Apr. 24, 2019); the Final Office Action (mailed Dec. 26, 2018); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed July 3, 2019) for the respective details. Appeal 2019-006821 Application 14/901,054 4 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We disagree with Appellant’s arguments, and we adopt as our own: (1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2–12); and (2) the corresponding reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. (Ans. 3–14.) We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the Examiner and emphasize the following. In finding that the combination of Ma and Zuberi teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitations at issue, the Examiner relies on Ma’s disclosure of a proxy cache that implements content caching and further provides bandwidth monitoring and client playout rate reduction control for streaming video sessions. (Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 11–14; Ma ¶¶ 24, 42, 25, 26, 39, Fig. 1.) The Examiner further relies on Zuberi’s disclosure of quality of service support for audio/video streams, including a cache storing previously measured available bandwidth on a wireless link, and transmission parameters for a data stream that may be set based on the measurement of available bandwidth or a cached measurement. (Final Act. 6; Ans. 11–14; Zuberi ¶¶ 52, 39, 12, 13, Abstract.) Regarding Ma, Appellant argues that “in Ma, there is no monitoring of a characteristic of reception of a requested content part which is not stored yet in the cache and, even less, a recording of such characteristic of reception” because “[c]ited portions of Ma only mention the monitoring of Appeal 2019-006821 Application 14/901,054 5 some bandwidths in order to use it for rate limiting and determining target bitrates for sessions.” (Appeal Br. 9, citing Ma ¶ 39.) Consequently, Appellant contends “Ma further fails to disclose the controlling of a data sending rate, based on a recorded characteristic of the reception of a previously requested content part by a cache, while delivering the stored content part from said cache to a subsequent client terminal.” (Appeal Br. 9, citing Ma ¶¶ 26, 39.) Regarding Zuberi, Appellant argues that Zuberi only teaches to record measurement of available bandwidth on a wireless link, which has little to do with the recording of at least one characteristic of reception by a cache of a requested content part received from a server in the sense of claim 1. In addition, a characteristic of reception of a content part is technically different from a bandwidth associated with a communication link. (Appeal Br. 10, citing Zuberi ¶ 52 (emphasis omitted).) We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Regarding Ma, the Examiner finds, and we agree that, Ma’s “proxy cache provides bandwidth monitoring and client playout rate reduction control for streaming video sessions” (Ans. 11, citing Ma ¶ 25), in which “bandwidth/traffic into and out of the proxy cache correspond[s] to [the claimed] ‘characteristic of reception by the cache for said content part received from the server’.” (Ans. 11.) The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that Ma’s bandwidth monitor monitors all traffic into and out of the proxy cache; [the] bandwidth monitor provides bandwidth information to the session manager so it is used in rate limiting and determining target bitrates for sessions; [and] the session manager is responsible for maintaining global rate limit; in other word[s], the session manager is limiting the overall Appeal 2019-006821 Application 14/901,054 6 bitrates for sessions based on all traffic into and out of the proxy cache monitored by the bandwidth monitor. (Ans. 13, citing Ma ¶ 39.) We see no error in the Examiner’s detailed findings, and Appellant does not address the Examiner’s findings as no Reply was filed. Regarding Zuberi, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Zuberi discloses measuring available bandwidth for content transmission and using the measured available bandwidth to set transmission parameters of the data stream/content based on a QoS policy . . . and further suggests storing/recording measurement of available bandwidth. (Ans. 12, citing Zuberi Abstract, ¶ 52.) The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that Zuberi teaches that “setting transmission parameters includes using a cached [or recorded] measurement of available bandwidth.” (Ans. 13, citing Zuberi ¶ 13.) We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Zuberi’s teachings have “little to do with the recording of at least one characteristic” (Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis omitted)), as the Examiner’s findings establish Zuberi’s measured available bandwidth is used “in accordance with a Quality of Service (QoS) policy” (Zuberi Abstract) in which the lack of an available cached (or recorded) measurement results in a data stream that “is transmitted with a low priority until a measurement can be made.” (Zuberi Abstract.) Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, as well as independent claim 10 commensurate in scope, and dependent claims 2–9, 11, and 12 not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 11. Appeal 2019-006821 Application 14/901,054 7 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 10–12 103 Ma, Zuberi 1–3, 10–12 4–6 103 Ma, Zuberi, Ferguson 4–6 7, 8 103 Ma, Zuberi, Luna 7, 8 9 103 Ma, Zuberi, Luna, Bugenhagen 9 Overall Outcome 1–12 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation