Ex Parte Pedlow et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 9, 2013

12782094 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 9, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LEO PEDLOW
and BRANT CANDELORE
____________

Appeal 2011-011030
Application 12/782,094
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and THOMAS
F. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-011030
Application 12/782,094

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-191. We have
jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
The invention relates generally to geographic Internet asset filtering
for Internet video clients including but not limited to TVs (Spec. 1).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. Consumer electronic (CE) device comprising:
housing;
display on the housing;
network interface;
processor in the housing controlling the display and
communicating with the Internet through the network interface;
the processor executing logic including:
contacting a management server;
providing an Internet Protocol (IP) address to the
management server, the IP address being associated with
a geographic location associated with the CE device;
receiving from the management server a user token
and at least one geographically-tailored service list, the
service list containing only content server addresses that
have been approved for access in the geographic region
indicated by the IP address of the CE device, the server
addresses being uniform resource locators (URLs);
presenting the service list on the display; and
responsive to a user selection of an entry on the
service list, accessing a content server associated with the
entry, wherein as part of the accessing of a content server
the processor also provides the user token such that the
CE device receives a content list of available content

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed March 1, 2011) and the Reply Brief (“Rep. Br.,” filed May 13,
2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 11, 2011).
Appeal 2011-011030
Application 12/782,094

3
from the content server only responsive to the content
server receiving the user token, checking the user token
against a local database of active tokens, and responsive
to the user token being in the database, the content server
returns the content list to the CE device such that no
further authentication is required between the CE device
and content server beyond the provisioning of a valid
user token by the CE device, and further wherein,
responsive to a determination that the content server
appears on the service list provided by the management
server, the CE device trusts the content server without
need for any further authentication on the part of the
content server.

Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Krishnamoorthi (U.S. 2010/0080163 A1; pub. Apr. 1,
2010), Fiatal (U.S. 2009/0181641 A1; pub. Jul. 16, 2009), and Blinn (U.S.
2010/0042735 A1; pub. Feb. 18, 2010).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Krishnamoorthi
FF1. Krishnamoorthi discloses that electronic devices such as mobile
telephone handsets and other terminals may be configured to receive a
variety of multimedia content items, such as sports, entertainment,
informational programs, or other multimedia content items via broadcast,
multicast or unicast transmission (para. [0002]).
FF2. Figure 17 of Krishnamoorthi is shown below:
App
App

1702
as se
more
geog
be de
spec
displ
For e
selec

eal 2011-0
lication 12
Figure 17
FF3. In
, 1704, an
rvices 170
regions i
raphic are
fined and
FF4. A
ific applic
FF5. Fo
ay on the
xample, a
t a team (p
11030
/782,094
depicts a
Figure 17
d 1706, ar
8, 1710, a
n order to
a may be a
re-defined
multipurp
ations and
r sporting
mobile dev
welcome
ara. [0282
venue-cas
, one or m
e defined,
nd 1712, m
provide ta
ctively ma
as desired
ose mobil
informatio
events inv
ice may b
screen on
]).

4
t system in
ore geogra
and one o
ay be des
rgeted pro
naged by
(para. [0
e device m
n upon en
olving mu
e themed
the mobile
cluding ta
phic areas
r more con
ignated fo
gramming
an operato
181]).
ay downlo
tering the
ltiple opp
to fans of t
device m
rgeted co
, such as r
tent servi
r each of
. Each de
r so that t
ad such v
venue (pa
osing team
he differe
ay prompt

ntent.
egions
ces, such
the one or
fined
he area can
enue
ra. [0281])
s, the
nt teams.
a user to

.
Appeal 2011-011030
Application 12/782,094

5
Fiatal
FF6. Personal computing device 130 may be configured to receive an
authentication token from mobile device 120 to authorize mobile device 120
prior to providing data and/or services to mobile device 120. The
authentication token may be an identifying element associated with the user
of mobile device 120 or mobile device 120 itself (para. [0071]).
FF7. Personal computing device 130 may allow mobile device 120 to
access network services and servers such as content provider 110 via a proxy
application (para. [0072]).
FF8. The server may authenticate and provides services, such as
digital content, to mobile device 120 based on the authentication token
(paras. [0075]-[0077]).

ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection of Independent Claim 1
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Krishnamoorthi, Fiatal, and Blinn renders obvious
independent claim 1 (App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 1-4). Appellants assert that
Krishnamoorthi does not disclose “receiving from the management server a
user token and at least one geographically-tailored service list,” as recited in
independent claim 1. Appellants’ assertions are misplaced, as a combination
of Krishnamoorthi and Fiatal, and not Krishnamoorthi alone, is cited for
disclosing the aforementioned limitation of independent claim 1.
Specifically, Fiatal discloses that mobile device 120 provides an
authentication token, the server of content provider 110 via personal
computing device 130 (para. [0071]). The authentication token had to
Appeal 2011-011030
Application 12/782,094

6
originate somewhere. And there are only a finite number of options from
where the authentication token could have originated. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 402-03 (2007).
[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable
solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to
pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If
this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not
of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Of those options, a management server associated with content provider 110
is the most logical, as Fiatal further discloses that the authorization token
causes mobile device 120 to be authenticated by the server of content
provider 110, and authorizes the server of content provider 110 to provide
data and/or services to mobile device 120 (para. [0071]). One of ordinary
skill would understand that mobile device 120 most likely received that
authentication token from the management server associated with content
provider 110, such that content provider 110 could control access to itself.
The Examiner then cites Krishnamoorthi for the proposition that such data
and/or services may include content services 1, 2, 3 in Figure 17, only a
subset of which are available at a given geographic location (para. [0181]).
For example, Figure 17 shows that second region 1704 only receives content
services 1, 2, while third region 1706 only receives content services 1, 3. As
for the recited “geographically-tailored service list,” the Examiner cites
paragraphs [0281]-[0282] of Krishnamoorthi as disclosing a venue specific
list of teams (i.e., a specific type of content services 1, 2, 3) for user
selection.

Appeal 2011-011030
Application 12/782,094

7
Appellants also assert the following:
First, the Answer declares that “content service 1-3” are
available within each location (Answer, bottom of page 13).
However, the relied-upon portion of figure 17 of
[Krishnamoorthi] illustrating the “content services 1-3” is not a
list as claimed and moreover as paragraph 181 clearly reveals
the relied-upon services 1-3 are individually available only in
respective individual locations. No service is available in more
than one location. Claim 1 does not recite being “available”
and furthermore requires a list to contain content server
addresses, whereas the table in figure 17 of [Krishnamoorthi]
simply shows a one-to-one service-to-location correspondence.
(Rep. Br. 3). We disagree. As set forth above, Figure 17 of Krishnamoorthi
discloses that certain content services 1, 2, 3 are available in more than one
location. For example, Figure 17 shows that second region 1704 receives
content services 1, 2, while third region 1706 receives content services 1, 3.
Content service 1 is available in both regions 1704, 1706. As for the list
containing content server addresses, Blinn, not Krishnamoorthi, is cited for
disclosing “the server addresses [for content services 1, 2, 3] being uniform
resource locators (URLs) (0047; 0049)” (Ans. 8).
Appellants further assert that Fiatal does not disclose
checking the user token against a local database of active
tokens, and responsive to the user token being in the database,
the content server returns the content list to the CE device such
that no further authentication is required between the CE device
and content server beyond the provisioning of a valid user
token by the CE device,
as recited in independent claim 1. Specifically, Appellants assert that the
authentication token in Fiatal is for setting up personal computing device
130 as a proxy to mobile device 120, and is unrelated to delivering a content
list from content provider 110 to mobile device 120. We disagree.
Appeal 2011-011030
Application 12/782,094

8
Paragraphs [0075]-[0077] of Fiatal disclose that the authentication token
from mobile device 120 is used by a server, related to content provider 110,
to authenticate and provides services, such as digital content, to mobile
device 120. We have already discussed above how Krishnamoorthi is cited
for disclosing that such digital content and/or services may include a content
list.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 as being unpatentable over Krishnamoorthi, Fiatal, and
Blinn. We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-9 as being
unpatentable over of Krishnamoorthi, Fiatal, and Blinn for the reason that
Appellants have not challenged such with any reasonable specificity (see In
re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
Obviousness Rejection of Independent Claim 10
We are persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a combination
of Krishnamoorthi, Fiatal, and Blinn discloses or suggests “providing to the
content servers on the service lists a respective user token for each
authorized user,” as recited in independent claim 10 (App. Br. 9; Reply Br.
4-5). This limitation is not present in independent claim 1. Accordingly, as
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 did not address this
limitation, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 10, or its
dependent claims 11-13.
Obviousness Rejection of Independent Claim 14
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Krishnamoorthi, Fiatal, and Blinn renders obvious
independent claim 14 (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5-6). Unlike Appellants’
Appeal 2011-011030
Application 12/782,094

9
assertions concerning the rejection of independent claim 10 in the Appeal
Brief, which included specific limitations of independent claim 10,
Appellants’ assertions concerning the rejection of independent claim 14 in
the Appeal Brief is the following: “[a]n explicit rejection of Claim 14 has
not been made. Instead, Claim 14 has been lumped in with Claim 1 without
separately addressing the specific elements of Claim 14. Accordingly,
Appellant[s] can only repeat the identifications of the clear errors noted
above” (App. Br. 9). Our analysis concerning the rejection of independent
claim 1 set forth above is fully responsive to these assertions.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants, for the first time, cite limitations of
independent claim 14 that differ from those of independent claim 1. These
new assertions in the Reply Brief are not in response to any assertions set
forth in the Examiner’s Answer, and are thus untimely and waived. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (second sentence); see also In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d
1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (an argument not first raised in the brief to the
Board is waived on appeal); cf. Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477
(BPAI 2010) (informative) (“Properly interpreted, the Rules do not require
the Board to take up a belated argument that has not been addressed by the
Examiner, absent a showing of good cause.”)
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 14 as being unpatentable over Krishnamoorthi, Fiatal, and
Blinn. We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16-19 as
being unpatentable over of Krishnamoorthi, Fiatal, and Blinn for the reason
that Appellants have not challenged such with any reasonable specificity
(see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
Appeal 2011-011030
Application 12/782,094

10
Obviousness Rejection of Dependent Claims 2 and 15
We are persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Figure 28 and
paragraph [0203] of Krishnamoorthi discloses or suggests “wherein the logic
controls the processor to permit the user no access to Internet sites other than
to the management server and content servers on the service,” as recited in
dependent claim 2 (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4). Dependent claim 15 recites a
similar limitation. While the cited portions of Krishnamoorthi disclose that
certain content from certain servers is delivered to the mobile device, they
do not disclose that only those servers can deliver content to the mobile
device.
We do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2 and 15.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-9, 14, and 16-19 is
AFFIRMED.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 2, 10-13, and 15 is
REVERSED.
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

hh