Appeal 2007-2220
Application 09/896,231
Rodriguez notes that bandwidth is a finite resource that limits the
number of simultaneous transmissions of video content (Rodriguez, ¶ 0046).
Accordingly, Rodriguez’ system manages bandwidth more effectively by,
among other things, dynamically allocating available bandwidth between the
transmission channels based on certain allocation criteria (Rodriguez, ¶¶
0047-48). To this end, Rodriguez’ bandwidth allocation manager (BAM)
125 performs variety of bandwidth allocation functions including, among
other things, fulfilling subscriber requests using any available bandwidth. In
an exemplary implementation, if few or no subscribers have requested a
certain movie, then the BAM can “recapture” that bandwidth and allocate it
to fulfill another subscriber request. Moreover, when a movie is paused or
stopped for a significant amount of time, that bandwidth can be reallocated
(Rodriguez, ¶ 0061).5
This functionality clearly teaches (1) determining bandwidth that is
either unused or underutilized (i.e., determining “excess” bandwidth), and
(2) reallocating such “excess” bandwidth for other purposes, including
downloading media content by other subscribers. Independent claims 1 and
63 are therefore fully met by Rodriguez.
For the foregoing reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 and 63 based on the disclosure to Rodriguez. Since
Appellants have not separately argued with particularity the patentability of
(1) dependent claims 2-4, 19, 20, 22-24, and 62, or (2) dependent claims 64,
65, 67-69, 72, and 74, these claims fall with independent claims 1 and 63
5 See also Rodriguez, ¶ 0069 (noting that the BAM enables efficient
broadcasting of video content by freeing bandwidth that was previously
allocated but unused); Id., ¶ 0080 (discussing the BAM’s capability to
recapture unused bandwidth when a user pauses the program).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013