Ex Parte Brehm et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 5, 201612627564 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/627,564 11130/2009 75930 7590 05/09/2016 LOZA & LOZA, LLP/Alcatel-Lucent Jessica W. Smith, Esq. 305 North 2nd Avenue, #127 Upland, CA 91786 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR MichaelJ. Brehm 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 805655 (ALU-1021) 4320 EXAMINER SALTARELLI, DOMINIC D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2421 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/09/2016 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): jessica-pto@lozaip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL J. BREHM, COREY F. ADAMS, and BRIAN C. WESTMORELAND Appeal2014-006012 Application 12/627,564 Technology Center 2400 Before THU A. DANG, LARRY J. HUME, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-006012 Application 12/627,564 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. A. INVENTION According to Appellants, the invention relates to "IP television (IPTV) systems, and in particular, to resell of IPTV services" (Spec. 1: 6-7). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A media backend server within an Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) system operated by a hosting operator to enable tiered reselling of IPTV services to a hosted operator servicing at least one subscriber, the media backend server compnsmg: a network interface coupled to a network to receive a web service call for a plurality of media content from a branch server operated by the hosted operator, to transmit a proxy web service call corresponding to the received web service call to a head end server, to retrieve media metadata for at least a portion of the plurality of media content from the head end server in response to the proxy web service call and to transmit filtered media metadata to the branch server for distribution to the at least one subscriber, the filtered media metadata corresponding to purchased ones of the plurality of media content pre- purchased by the hosted operator from the hosting operator prior to the media backend server transmitting the proxy web service call to the head end server; a memory for storing operator metadata associated with the hosted operator, the operator metadata indicating the purchased ones of the plurality of media content for use in 2 Appeal2014-006012 Application 12/627,564 determining the filtered media metadata to be provided to the branch server; and a processor coupled to the network interface and the memory, the processor operable to translate the web service call to the proxy web service call and to identify the filtered media metadata to be transmitted to the branch server using the operator metadata; wherein the media metadata and the filtered media metadata includes a collection of available ones of the plurality of media content. C. REJECTION The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: V aidyanathan Cooper US 2002/0138291 Al US 8,037,506 B2 Sept. 26, 2002 Oct. 11, 2011 Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Cooper and V aidyanathan. II. ISSUE The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Cooper and Vaidyanathan teaches or would have suggested a "network interface" to "retrieve media metadata for at least a portion of the plurality of media content from the head end server in response to the proxy web service call" and to "transmit filtered media metadata to the branch server," wherein "the media metadata and the filtered media metadata includes a collection of available ones of the plurality of media content" (claim 1, emphasis added). 3 Appeal2014-006012 Application 12/627,564 Ill. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Cooper 1. Cooper discloses a network system for distribution of digital content files in which a proxy system/media backend server (24) "acts as a cyber middle-man" and "facilitate[ s] the two-way transfer of information" between a movie studio/head end server (20) and distribution partners/branch servers (25) servicing subscribers (22) (Abst.; Fig. 2; col. 7, 11. 48-55). The proxy system (24) forwards a subscriber's request for content to the movie studio (20), and in response the movie studio (20) provides the requested content to the subscriber (22) through the proxy system (24) and one of multiple distribution partners (25) (Figs. 5A-5B; col. 9, 11. 44--50). Vaidyanathan 2. Vaidyanathan discloses a digital file marketplace (10) in which a third party provider (15) pre-orders content (12) for resale to consumers ( 16) (Fig. 1; i-f 34 ). "If the user selects one or more [] files to resell ... the user is provided with a copy of the file or a link to the file" (i-f 34 ). IV. ANALYSIS Appellants contend the combination of Cooper and Vaidyanathan fails to teach or suggest "retriev[ ing] media metadata ... from the head end server" or transmitting "filtered media metadata" as claimed (App. Br. 12-13, 18-19). Appellants further contend Cooper in view of V aidyanathan does not teach or suggest retrieving media metadata from the 4 Appeal2014-006012 Application 12/627,564 head end server in response to the proxy web service call as claimed (id. at 15-17). In particular, Appellants contend that metadata would need to be stored with Vaidyanathan's "'links"' to "enable[] users to search for and download files from a reseller" (id. at 15-16) and that "the information [media metadata] could not be provided after the purchase [i.e., in response to the proxy service call]" (id. at 17). We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and evidence presented. However, we disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the Examiner's rejections of the claims. We agree with the Examiner's findings, and find no error with the Examiner's conclusion that the claims would have been obvious over the combined teachings. As an initial matter of claim interpretation, we give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Although we interpret claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane). We note claim 1 merely defines "media metadata" as being "retrieve[ d] ... for at least a portion of the plurality of media content from the head end server in response to the proxy web service call" and as "includ[ing] a collection of available ones of the plurality of media content." The Specification merely discloses that media metadata "can include,for example ... lists of available services" (Spec. 10:6-9, emphasis added) or "a collection of digital rights management (DRM) keys and a collection of available ones of the plurality of media content" (Spec. 5: 1-3). In view of the lack of a specific, limiting definition in the Specification and claims, we 5 Appeal2014-006012 Application 12/627,564 do not find the Examiner's interpretation of "media metadata" as encompassing descriptive information for "the identification of specific audio/video data as it is transferred across network links and stored in databases" (Ans. 2) to be overly broad or unreasonable. That is, we find no error in the Examiner's broad but reasonable interpretation of "media metadata" as "identifiers that distinguish one media content from another" (id.), and thus, we adopt the interpretation. Similarly, neither "filtered" nor "filtered media metadata" are defined in claim 1, other than that the filtered media metadata is "transmit[ ted] ... to the branch server for distribution to the at least one subscriber," "correspond[ s] to purchased ones of the plurality of media content pre- purchased," and "includes a collection of available ones of the plurality of media content." The Specification merely discloses an exemplary embodiment in which "the filtered media metadata ... include [ s] a collection of digital rights management (DRM) keys and a collection of available ones of the plurality of media content" (Spec. 5: 1-3). In view of the lack of a specific, limiting definition in the Specification and claims, we do not find the Examiner's interpretation of "filtered" to mean "selectively transmitted" (Ans. 3) overly broad or unreasonable. Accordingly, we adopt the Examiner's broad but reasonable interpretation that "filtered media metadata" encompasses "the media metadata [that] is linked to the [selectively transmitted] media content itself during routing" (id.). The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 6 Appeal2014-006012 Application 12/627,564 We find no error with the Examiner's reliance on Cooper for disclosing and suggesting "retriev[ ing] media metadata ... from the head end server" and "transmit[ting] filtered media metadata" (Final Act. 3). Although Appellants contend "the only mention in Cooper of any 'metadata' related to the media ... merely teach[ es] that the meta-data is stored in the database 68" and "cannot be said to teach any type of meta-data 'filtering"' (App. Br. 13), we agree with the Examiner's finding that, in Cooper, "media contents received by the proxy server from the content creator" include media metadata "allowing the proxy server to distinguish one media content from the next and properly route them to the correct distribution partner" (Ans. 3; see also FF 1 ). Further, we agree with the Examiner that, in Cooper, filtering the media metadata "takes place when the movies are selectively transmitted by the proxy server to different distribution partners" in order to "ensure a distribution partner does not receive media content it did not request" (id.). Accordingly, in view of our broad but reasonable claim interpretation, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Cooper in combination with Vaidyanathan teaches or at least suggests "retriev[ing] media metadata ... from the head end server" and "transmit[ting] filtered media metadata" (claim 1) as claimed. Although Appellants contend Cooper in view of Vaidyanathan does not teach or suggest retrieving media metadata from the head end server in response to the proxy web service call (App. Br. 15-17), we agree with the Examiner that, in the combination of Cooper and Vaidyanathan, "content pre-purchased from the studio ... and associated metadata are still stored and accessed from the studio on demand using said links" (Final Act. 2) and that "the delivery of media metadata occurs every time a media content is 7 Appeal2014-006012 Application 12/627,564 transferred from the content studio to the proxy server and from the proxy server to the distribution partner" (Ans. 4). That is, even if media metadata is stored with V aidyanathan' s links, in the combination of Cooper and V aidyanathan media metadata is also retrieved (along with the media content) from the head end server in response to the proxy web service call and filtered before transmission to the branch server, as claimed. Although Appellants also contend that "the reseller in Vaidyanathan must inherently maintain a list or 'collection of available ones of the plurality of media content"' (App. Br. 16, emphasis added), or "metadata indicating 'a collection of available ones of the plurality of media content"' (Reply Br. 8, emphasis added), these arguments are not commensurate in scope with the recited claim language. In particular, claim 1 does not require the collection of available ones of the plurality of media content to be a "list" or metadata "indicating" available media content. We are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's finding that the media metadata and filtered media metadata in Cooper include a collection of available ones of the plurality of media content, "the collection being the files requested" (Ans. 5). Although Appellants contend "the Examiner did not indicate where in Cooper such a feature was taught" (Reply Br. 9-10), we find the Examiner's explanation of Cooper's "collection [of available ones] being the files requested" (Ans. 5) to be sufficient. Similarly, we note that Appellants' arguments that "[t]he combination of Cooper and Vaidyanathan fails to teach or suggest 'retrieving media metadata ... from the head end server in response to the proxy web service call [from the branch server],"' (App. Br. 13, emphasis added) and that "Vaidyanathan does not teach or suggest that the media metadata including 8 Appeal2014-006012 Application 12/627,564 'a collection of available ones of the plurality of media content' would be retrieved from the 'head end server' (content owner) in response to a 'proxy web service call' (purchase) from the 'branch server' (consumer)" (id. at 16, emphasis added) are not commensurate in scope with the recited claim language. In particular, in claim 1, the proxy web service call is transmitted by the media backend server, not the branch server. We find no error with the Examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious to combine Cooper and Vaidyanathan "for the benefit of decentralizing access to content which greatly reduces the cost of distribution by content providers" (Final Act. 5). That is, we find the Examiner has provided sufficient articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. The Supreme Court has determined that the conclusion of obviousness can be based on the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 420-21. Based on this record, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2-10 depending therefrom and falling therewith (App. Br. 19) over Cooper and Vaidyanathan. Appellants do not provide substantive arguments for independent claims 11 and 18 separate from those of claim 1 (App. Br. 12, 19). Thus, claims 11 and 18, claims 12-17 depending from claim 11, and claims 19 and 20 depending from claim 18 fall with claim 1 over Cooper and Vaidyanathan. 9 Appeal2014-006012 Application 12/627,564 V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation