Ex Parte KoulDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 29, 201411819967 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SAMEER KOUL ____________ Appeal 2011-012534 Application 11/819,967 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOHN A. EVANS, and LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 1-112 as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.3 1 The Real Party in Interest is Alcatel-Lucent. 2 App. Br. 8. 3 Our decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed February 28, 2011 (“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed May 25, 2011 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed March 30, 2011 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed July 6, 2010 (“Final Rej.”); and the original Specification filed June 29, 2007 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2011-012534 Application 11/819,967 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to methods of controlling internet protocol television (IPTV) networks. Spec., ¶ [0001]. Claim 1 is independent. The claims have not been argued separately and therefore stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized: 1. A method of operating an Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) network comprising: receiving at an IPTV network, data from a mobile station; determining whether to transmit IPTV content to a multimedia output device separate from the mobile station or to the mobile station, the determining based on whether the data from the mobile station identifies the multimedia output device; and transmitting from the IPTV network an IPTV content based on the data from the mobile station to the determined multimedia output device or the mobile station. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows: McQuaide US 2006/0041923 A1 Pub. Feb 23, 2006 O’Neil US 2007/0067807 A1 Pub. Mar. 22, 2007 The claims stand rejected as follows:4 1. Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over McQuaide in view of O’Neil. Ans. 3-7. 4 Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2011-012534 Application 11/819,967 3 ISSUES ON APPEAL Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 9-13) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-3), the issue presented on appeal is: Whether the Examiner erred in finding O’Neil teaches “determining whether to transmit IPTV content to a multimedia output device separate from the mobile station or to the mobile station, the determining based on whether the data from the mobile station identifies the multimedia output device.” ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellant’s conclusions. Appellant argues Claim 1 requires a transmission choice between a mobile device and a separate output device, and that choice must be made based on the mobile device identifying or not identifying a separate output device. App. Br. 10. Appellant contends that the Examiner’s application of O’Neil, which determines whether to transmit or not to transmit to the mobile device alone based on the authentication, is not reasonable. Id. Appellant argues Claim 1 internally refers back to the “determining” as a transmission destination determination between the separate output device and mobile station, not a decision to transmit or not transmit at all. App. Br. 12. Further, Appellant contends the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim is not reasonable in light of the Specification, which consistently addresses a “determination” as a transmission destination determination, and not a determination to not transmit at all to a single mobile phone. Id. Appellant Appeal 2011-012534 Application 11/819,967 4 also contends the Examiner has not accounted for the claimed limitation of “the determining based on whether the data from the mobile station identifies the multimedia output device,” because the mobile phone in O’Neil is always present and there is no explicit accounting between a presence and absence of a device. Id. Examiner finds O’Neil discloses a mobile terminal that establishes a Wi-Fi connection for subscribed mobile devices using authentication to identify the mobile devices, and only subscribed devices will receive the decoder application from the information service provider to decode transmitted content. Ans. 7. Therefore, the Examiner contends, the determination as to which device or terminal can receive the requested content is done by the ISP when it determines whether or not to transmit a decoder key to the requesting device based on authentication. Id. The Examiner argues that a reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation includes a mobile device attempting to access the system through the transceiver, authentication of the device, and transmission of data based on this authentication. Id. Appellant replies that O’Neil discloses that subscriber content “is broadcast from a transmitter at the determined network access point address to at least one of the group of subscriber mobile devices over a wireless network.” Reply Br. 3. Therefore, Appellant argues, the devices of O'Neil only receive a decoder key if the mobile devices themselves are registered to receive subscriber content. Id. Appellant contends the system as taught by O'Neil cannot meet “determining whether to transmit IPTV content to a multimedia output device separate from the mobile station or to the mobile Appeal 2011-012534 Application 11/819,967 5 station, the determining based on whether the data from the mobile station identifies the multimedia output device,” as recited in Claim 1. We agree with the Appellant’s conclusions. Claim 1 requires the transmission of IPTV content to an output device or a mobile station to always occur. Therefore, when Claim 1 is viewed as a whole, interpreting the limitation “determining whether to transmit IPTV content to multimedia output device separate from the mobile station or to the mobile station” as “determining whether to transmit IPTV content” at all cannot be supported. Furthermore, Claim 1 requires the transmission determination to be “based on whether the data from the mobile station identifies the multimedia output device.” McQuaide was relied upon to teach the limitation “receiving at an IPTV network, data from a mobile station.” Ans. 3. However, we find neither McQuaide nor O’Neil discloses the data received at the IPTV network from the mobile station is capable of identifying a [separate] multimedia output device. Finally, Claim 1 requires “transmitting…IPTV content based on the data [received at the IPTV network] from the mobile station.” O’Neil was relied upon for this limitation (Ans. 4), and we find no teaching in O’Neil where the IPTV network transmits content based on any data received at the IPTV network from the mobile station. The only data transmitted from the mobile device of O’Neil is the identification of the mobile device, and that data is transmitted to the application server 140 and not the IPTV network 180. O’Neil, ¶ [0049]. Therefore, we decline to sustain the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 1 as obvious over McQuaide in view of O’Neil, and dependent claims 2-11 which also include the argued limitations. Appeal 2011-012534 Application 11/819,967 6 DECISION The rejection of Claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is REVERSED. REVERSED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation