THOMSON LICENSING

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 6, 2021

2019006821 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 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.
14/901,054 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