Ex Parte Chen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 19, 2016

13046621 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/046,621 03/1112011
84577 7590 01/21/2016
Lowe Graham Jones PLLC
701 Fifth Avenue
Suite 4800
Seattle, WA 98104
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mi Chen
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.
P201 l -Ol -06 5259
EXAMINER
ADAMS, EILEEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
0112112016 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):
patentdocketing@lowegrahamjones.com
IPDEPT@echostar.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MI CHEN
Appeal2014-002395
Application 13/046,621
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 4--8, and 11-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We reverse.
Appeal2014-002395
Application 13/046,621
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present invention relates to accessing missed media content. See
generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for accessing media content, the method
compnsmg:
detecting, at a media device, an occurrence of a failed
recording of at least a portion of a media content event of
interest that was broadcast to the media device from a
media content broadcast facility, wherein the broadcasted media
content event of interest is being recorded by the media device
as the media content event of interest is being received at the
media device;
transmitting a first notification of the detected occurrence
of the failed recording of the portion of the media content event
of interest from the media device to a replacement content
device;
receiving, at the media device, a second notification from
the replacement content device, wherein the second notification
signifies that the portion of the media content that failed
recording is available from at least one content source, and
wherein the second notification includes access information for
the at least one content source;
establishing a connection between the media device and
the at least one content source based upon the access
information, wherein the establishment of the connection
between the media device and the at least one content source is
managed by the media device;
communicating a request from the media device to the at
least one content source for at least the portion of the media
content that failed recording, wherein the request is
communicated over the established connection; and
receiving, at the media device, at least the portion of
media content that failed to record at the media device, wherein
the portion of media content that failed recording is
2
Appeal2014-002395
Application 13/046,621
communicated from the at least one content source to the media
device over the established connection.
Takahashi
Ugawa et al.
Mamo et al.
Li et al.
Bachet et al.
Ramaswamy et al.
References and Rejections
US 2004/0019909 Al
US 2008/0240673 Al
US 2008/0259391 Al
US 2009/0144784 Al
US 2009/0300673 Al
US 2011/0088052 Al
Jan.29,2004
Oct. 2, 2008
Oct. 23, 2008
June 4, 2009
Dec. 3, 2009
Apr. 14, 2011
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over U gawa, Takahashi, and Li.
Claims 6-7, 11-12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over U gawa, Takahashi, Li, and Bachet.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over U gawa, Takahashi, Li, and Mauro.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over U gawa, Takahashi, Li, and Ramaswamy.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant's arguments in the briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellant's
arguments. We concur with Appellant's conclusion that the Examiner erred
in finding U gawa, Takahashi, and Li collectively teaches
transmitting a first notification of the detected occurrence of the
failed recording of the portion of the media content event of
interest/ram the media device to a replacement content device;
... communicating a request from the media device to the at
least one content source for at least the portion of the media
3
Appeal2014-002395
Application 13/046,621
content that failed recording, wherein the request is
communicated over the established connection,
as recited in independent claim 1 (emphases added). 1
The Examiner maps the claimed "media device" to Ugawa's playback
terminal 20. See Ans. 5. The Examiner maps the claimed "replacement
content device" to Ugawa's content distribution server 30. See Ans. 6. The
Examiner then maps the claimed "at least one content source" to the same
Ugawa's content distribution server 30. See Ans. 9-11.
We agree with Appellant that the claimed elements "replacement
content device" and "at least one content source" are two separate and
distinctive claim terms. See Reply Br. 7-12; App. Br. 8-12. 2 Because the
Examiner maps Ugawa's content distribution server 30 to two separate claim
elements "replacement content device" and "at least one content source," the
Examiner's mapping would render the term "at least one content source"
superfluous. See Mangosoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corp., 525 F.3d 1327, 1330-31
(Fed. Cir. 2008) (rejecting claim construction that would render a claim term
superfluous).
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence to support
the rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1, and corresponding dependent claims for similar
reasons.
For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 8 and 13, and corresponding dependent claims.
1 Appellant raises additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
2 We treat the substitute Appeal Brief as the Reply Brief.
4
Appeal2014-002395
Application 13/046,621
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4--8, and 11-20 is
reversed.
REVERSED
ACP
5