Ex Parte FiatalDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 201813489855 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/489,855 06/06/2012 Trevor Fiatal 118194 7590 09/19/2018 NK Patent Law- Seven Networks 4917 Waters Edge Drive Suite 275 Raleigh, NC 27606 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. 455/021/2 UTIL 2307 EXAMINER NGUYEN,LEV ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2174 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/19/2018 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): usptomail@nkpatentlaw.com abackholm@seven.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TREVOR FIAT AL Appeal2017-011085 1 Application 13/489,8552 Technology Center 2100 Before BARBARA A. BENOIT, JOHN D. HAMANN, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 18-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Our decision relies upon Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed May 8, 2017), Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Aug. 28, 2017), and Specification ("Spec.," filed June 6, 2012), as well as the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed June 29, 2017) and the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Sept. 9, 2016). 2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Seven Networks, LLC. App. Br. 2. Appeal2017-011085 Application 13/489,855 THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant's claimed invention relates to "reducing network and battery consumption during content delivery and playback." Spec. ,r 4. Claim 1 is illustrative of subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below. 1. A method for reducing power consumption during content delivery and playback, comprising: receiving a selection designating content at a content source; generating a playlist based on the one or more user selections; downloading the designated content to local storage of a media device, wherein the content is downloaded at a maximum available network bandwidth using a radio at the media device, wherein downloading the content is based on an order of the play list; playing a downloaded portion of the designated content from the local storage to a media player of the media device; and deactivating the radio when the designated content is completely downloaded. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL (1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6-8, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Tayloe, et al. (US 2009/0138614 Al; published May 28, 2009) (hereinafter "Tayloe"); Major et al., (US 8,868,772 B2; issued Oct. 21, 2014) (hereinafter "Major"); Roussel, et al. (US 2009/0221326 Al; published Sept. 3, 2009) (hereinafter "Roussel"); and Kosiba, et al. (US 2008/0005348 Al; published Jan. 3, 2008) (hereinafter "Kosiba"). Final Act. 2-5. 2 Appeal2017-011085 Application 13/489,855 (2) The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Tayloe, Major, Roussel, Kosiba, and Lawrence-Apfelbaum, et al. (US 2009/0210899 Al; published Aug. 20, 2009) (hereinafter "Lawrence-Apfelbaum"). Final Act. 5. (3) The Examiner rejected claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Tayloe, Major, Roussel, Kosiba, and Yoneda, etal. (US 2008/0015718 Al; published Jan. 17, 2008) (hereinafter "Yoneda"). Final Act. 5---6. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's contentions that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellant's contentions for the reasons discussed below. (1) Independent claims 1. 18. and 20 Independent claims 1, 18, and 20 recite "a radio" that is (i) located at "a media device" (e.g., a mobile phone, laptop, or MP3 player) and (ii) used to download content to the media device's local storage. App. Br. 17, 20- 21; Spec. ,r 5. Claims 1 and 20 also recite "deactivating the radio" when the content is completely downloaded - claim 18 recites a similar limitation. App. Br. 17, 20-21. Appellant argues that the combination of Tayloe, Major, Roussel, and Kosiba fails to teach or suggest this latter limitation (i.e., deactivating the radio when downloading is complete) of claims 1, 18, and 20. See App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 2---6. Appellant argues that Roussel, upon which the Examiner relies, instead "teaches stopping radio communications," which is different than "deactivating the radio," when downloading is complete. See App. Br. 6; 3 Appeal2017-011085 Application 13/489,855 see also Reply Br. 3-5. More specifically, Appellant argues that Roussel teaches closing the radio link, which stops communications, between Roussel' s access point ( denoted as "PA") and Roussel' s media device ( a portable equipment terminal, denoted as "EP terminal") when downloading is complete. See App. Br. 7 (citing Roussel ,r,r 81, 87, 106-112); see also Reply Br. 3-5; Roussel ,r 44. According to Appellant, Roussel is silent as to deactivating its media device's radio. App. Br. 7-8. Appellant also argues that Roussel teaches that the access point (rather than the media device) closes the radio link, which does not also teach deactivating the media device's radio because only the media device can deactivate its radio. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 6-7. Appellant also argues that Roussel's teaching of conserving resources does not teach deactivating a media device's radio when downloading is complete. Reply Br. 5---6 ( citing Roussel ,r 15). The Examiner finds that the combination of Tayloe, Major, Roussel, and Kosiba teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Final Act. 3; Ans. 7- 8. In particular, the Examiner finds that Roussel teaches deactivating the media device's radio when the designated content is completely downloaded. See Final Act. 3 (citing Roussel ,r,r 81, 87, 106-112); see also Ans. 7 (citing Spec. ,r 37 (finding the Specification discloses that "deactivating also includes shutting down")). In support, the Examiner finds that Roussel teaches conserving a media device's hardware resources, including by having no "energy consuming radio activit[ies]" (i.e., shutting down the radio) when the downloading of content is complete. Id. at 7-8 (citing Roussel ,r,r 15, 65, 66, 97, 107, 112). 4 Appeal2017-011085 Application 13/489,855 We find that Roussel teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. First, Roussel teaches using a radio link to download content, and "clos[ing] the radio link at the end of the transmission" (i.e., when downloading is complete). Roussel ,r,r 97, 107, 112. Second, Roussel teaches that when the radio link is closed, Roussel' s media device functions in a "standby mode, ... without implicating an energy consuming radio activity." Id. ,r 66. Thus, Roussel's teachings at least suggest that when downloading content is complete and the radio link is closed, that the media device's radio is deactivated (i.e., shut down and not consuming energy). See id. ,r,r 66, 107, 112. This finding is consistent with the Specification, which does not define "deactivating," but describes that the radio can "throttle back and/or shut down" when downloading content is complete. Spec. ,r 37. Furthermore, deactivating the media device's radio when the radio link is closed is a highly predictable course of action when trying to conserve a media device's hardware resources, such as in Roussel - without the radio link, the radio cannot serve its purpose of communicating. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007) ("If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability."); Roussel ,r 15 (teaching conserving hardware resources). In addition, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument (App. Br. 8) that Roussel' s access point closing the radio link cannot teach the disputed limitation. As we discuss above, Roussel also teaches that the media device's radio performs no energy consuming activity (i.e., is shut down) after the access point closes the radio link. Roussel ,r 66. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 18, and 20. 5 Appeal2017-011085 Application 13/489,855 (2) Dependent claims 2. 5~. and 19 Based on our findings above, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of (i) claims 2 and 6-8, which depend from independent claim 1; (ii) claim 5, which depends from independent claim 1; and (iii) claim 19, which depends from independent claim 18, as Appellant does not provide separate arguments3 for their patentability. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (finding that when Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they depend). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 18- 20. 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 3 Appellant does not provide separate arguments for the rejections of dependent claims 5 and 19, but repeats the same arguments that it made with respect to the independent claims. See App. Br. 10-12, 13-15. 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation