Ex Parte Gilbert

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2018

14450091 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/450,091 08/01/2014
3017 7590 06/26/2018
BARLOW, JOSEPHS & HOLMES, LTD.
101 DYER STREET
5THFLOOR
PROVIDENCE, RI 02903
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Vincent Logan Gilbert
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.
R086 P03089-US1 2572
EXAMINER
LESNIEWSKI, VICTOR D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2493
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VINCENT LOGAN GILBERT
Appeal2017-010358
Application 14/450,091 1
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies RISOFTDEV, Inc. as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2017-010358
Application 14/450,091
BACKGROUND
THE INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates generally to "content
delivery systems, and more particularly to an improved system and methods
for encoding, storing, retrieving and delivering digital content using
Extensible Markup Language ('XML')." Spec. i-f 2.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A computer-implemented method for managing digital
content in an extensible media format, the method comprising
the steps of:
implementing an at least one initial request server in
memory on an at least one computing device, said initial request
server configured for receiving and processing requests for
content from an at least one client device in the possession of a
user;
implementing an at least one content server in memory on
the at least one computing device, said content server configured
for storing and selectively distributing the content;
storing the content in an at least one text-based extensible
media format ("EMF") file, each EMF file comprising:
a frame page containing a frame page identifier,
used for sequentially arranging the at least one EMF file
when assembling the content on the client device, and
an at least one frame, each frame containing at least
a portion of the content stored in text based EMF along
with a frame identifier used for sequentially arranging the
at least one frame when assembling the content on the
client device; and
upon the initial request server receiving a content request
from the user via the associated client device, transmitting to said
client device each EMF file containing at least a portion of the
requested content.
2
Appeal2017-010358
Application 14/450,091
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
1. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated
by Chen (US 2002/0069217 Al, published June 6, 2002). Final Act. 3--4.
2. Claims 2-8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chen and Xiques (US 2013/0219178 Al, published
August 22, 2013). Final Act. 4--9.
3. Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chen and Thornburgh (US 2013/0110981 Al, published
May 2, 2013). Final Act. 9-10.
4. Claims 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chen, Thornburgh, and Rastogi (US 2014/0244602 Al,
published August 28, 2014). Final Act. 10-12.
5. Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chen, Thornburgh, Rastogi, and Yun (US 2003/0177255
Al, published September 18, 2003). Final Act. 12-14.
6. Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chen and Weerasinghe (US 2011/0321082 Al, published
December 29, 2011). Final Act. 14--15.
7. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chen and Rastogi. Final Act. 15-17.
DISCUSSION
Claim 1
Appellant argues that in Chen "what is being done is that frames are
transmitted in their native format." Br. 5. Thus, "the raw media remains in
the raw media format" (Br. 5), and is "housed in a library in their native
3
Appeal2017-010358
Application 14/450,091
formats" (Br. 6). Appellant argues the frame in Chen is only a URL
reference to these external reference files. Br. 5. In contrast, according to
Appellant, "the claims as amended ... make[] it clear that all of the contents
on a frame by frame basis is converted and stored in in [sic] a text based
extensible media format." Br. 6.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's argument. Initially, we note that
claim 1 does not recite that "all of the contents" be "converted" into a text
based extensible media format. Indeed, "converting" media content is not
recited at all in the claims. The Examiner responds to Appellant's argument
by explaining that "Chen's media frames carry actual media content." Ans.
2 (citing Chen i-f 27). This raw media data or compressed media data, the
Examiner finds, is taken as input when creating the MVR-XML file. Ans. 2
(citing Chen i-f 30). The Examiner finds this MVR-XML file corresponds to
the claimed EMF file. Final Act. 3 (citing Chen i-f 30). Thus, the Examiner
finds "the data is not simply transferred as is, but is transformed in the
composition of the MVR-XML file." Ans. 2 (citing Chen Abstract). We
agree with the Examiner.
Chen states that "raw Rich Media is incorporated into the framework
as a series of related frames." Chen Abstract. The raw media assets are
used "for preparing a textual specification description, typically XML in an
electronic template of desired Rich Media content." Id. "The template and
raw media assets are transmitted by the creator to the server for combining
the raw media assets and the XML textual specification in the template as a
composed MVR file using the batch-processing program." Id. Similarly,
Chen explains that "an XML specification along with raw media data or
compressed media data [is taken] as input to create a corresponding MVR-
4
Appeal2017-010358
Application 14/450,091
XML file." Id. i-f 30. Because the MVR-XML file is created by combining
the raw media assets and the XML textual specification, we agree that the
MVR-XML file stores the media content in text based format.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Remaining Pending Claims
Appellant repeats the arguments discussed above for each of the
appealed claims. See Br. 6-18. Additionally, Appellant argues that Xiques,
Thornburgh, Rastogi, Yun, and Weerasinghe do not cure the deficiencies of
Chen. See, e.g., Br. 8, 9 (arguing that Xiques and Thornburgh "do[] not
include any reference to the parceling out of the broken small segments of
individual content files"); id. at 10, 14 (arguing that Rastogi, Yun, and
Weerasinghe "do[] not first provide for the conversion of the data from a
media format to a text based EMF file as required and claimed in the present
invention"). Appellant, however, does not present any further arguments for
separate patentability of the remaining claims.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of the remaining
claims for the same reasons as discussed with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-19 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5