Ex Parte Qureshey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2013

11563230 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/563,230 11/27/2006 Safi Qureshey CT-PLA-001CIP2/US
A005
1580
71739 7590 08/23/2013
Concert Technology Corporation
5400 Trinity Road, Suite 303
Raleigh, NC 27607
EXAMINER
BILGRAMI, ASGHAR H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2013 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 SAFI QURESHEY and DANIEL D. SHEPPARD

________________

Appeal 2011-000134
Application 11/563,230
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOHN G. NEW, and
LYNNE E. PETTIGREW Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000134
Application 11/563,230

2
SUMMARY
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-22 and 45-51 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Brandt et al.
(US 6,701,355 B1, March 2, 2004) (“Brandt”) and Curtin (US 6,925,489
B1, August 2, 2005) (“Curtin”).1
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a network-enabled audio device
that provides a display device that allows the user to select playlists of
music much like a jukebox. Abstract.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS

Appellants argue that the Examiner erred for essentially the same
reasons with respect to claims 1-22 and 45-51. App. Br. 6, 8. We therefore
select claim 1 as representative. Claim 1 recites:
1. A method of operation of a network-enabled audio
device comprising:

a) sending, from the audio device, a request to a
remote server for supplemental information related to a
song in real-time while the song is playing from a local
source associated with the audio device; and

1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 13, 16, 21,
and 22 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (first paragraph) as failing to
comply with the enablement requirement. Ans. 11.
Appeal 2011-000134
Application 11/563,230

3
b) receiving, by the audio device, the supplemental
information from the remote server.

App. Br. 12.

ISSUES AND ANALYSES
A. Claim 1
Issue
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Brandt and Curtin teaches or suggests the limitation of
claim 1 reciting “sending, from the audio device, a request to a remote
server for supplemental information related to a song in real-time while the
song is playing from a local source associated with the audio device.” App.
Br. 7. We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred.

Analysis
Appellants argue that the Examiner erroneously interpreted the
language of claim 1, which allegedly requires that the song is playing from
a local source and not, as the Examiner found, that the request is sent from a
local audio device. App. Br. 7. Appellants contend that the limitation
“from a local source associated with the audio device” is a phrase
modifying how the song is playing, and argue that it therefore must be read
in accordance with the limitation directed to sending. Id. Consequently,
argue Appellants, Brandt does not teach sending a request for supplemental
information for a song while the song is playing from a local source, rather,
Brandt teaches that songs are streamed from a remote source (i.e., played
from a remote source). Id.
Appeal 2011-000134
Application 11/563,230

4
Appellants argue further that Curtin likewise fails to teach that the
request is sent while the song is playing from a local source as claimed.
App. Br. 7. According to Appellants, Curtin teaches that the song is from a
broadcast radio station and therefore does not correct the deficiencies of
Brandt. Id.
Appellants also argue that Brandt does not teach or suggest that the
song is playing from a local source but, rather, that the broadcast material
comprising the source of the track is received “via the Internet connection”
from a remote location. App. Br. 8.
The Examiner responds that Brandt discloses that the user equipment
can be a “Personal Computer (PC) or any other processor-based system”
with network connectivity. Ans. 12-13 (citing Brandt, col. 5, ll. 56-67; Fig.
5). The Examiner finds that such a PC or other processor-based system
with network connectivity corresponds to claim 1’s “local source” that
plays audio content. Id. The Examiner finds that both the language of the
claim and Appellants’ Specification are silent with respect to what may
constitute a “local source.” Ans. 14. The Examiner therefore finds that an
artisan of ordinary skill in the contemporary art would have known that,
regardless of the source of the media, as long as the local audio device (i.e.,
the PC or other processor-based system) received the content and started to
play it, the PC or other processor based system could be considered a “local
source” associated with the audio device. Id. (citing Brandt, col.6, ll. 24-
31). The Examiner finds that, once received, the media/content must come
through some kind of processor or memory buffer associated with the local
audio device. Id.
Appeal 2011-000134
Application 11/563,230

5
The Examiner also finds that Brandt teaches that the content, along
with its supplemental information, is provided to the user equipment in real
time (i.e., while the content is being played). Ans. 14 (citing Brandt, col. 6,
ll. 32-39).
The Examiner finds further that although Brandt does not explicitly
teach sending a request for supplemental information to a remote server
while the song is being played from the local source; Curtain teaches
sending a request to a remote server to acquire supplemental information
about an audio song of interest. Ans. 15 (citing Curtin, col.5, ll. 3-12; Fig.
2).
Appellants reply that the Examiner’s interpretation of “local source”
is so broad as to be unreasonable and that no one skilled in the art would
interpret a message received from a remote server to be received from a
local source as a result of its origin being “transmogrified” upon receipt.
Reply Br. 3. Appellants also argue that the language of Brandt, cited by the
Examiner, reciting “[t]his data can be sent in real time as the broadcast
materials are being broadcast or otherwise sent to user equipment 112”
refers to sending supplemental information from a data server to user
equipment and not, as the Examiner finds, sending, from the audio device, a
request to a remote server for supplemental information. Id. Appellants
argue that this passage makes clear that the data is sent in real time as the
broadcast materials are being broadcast to the user equipment. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The language of
the disputed limitation recites, in relevant part, “while the song is playing
from a local source associated with the audio device.” We agree with the
Examiner that the claim term “played from a local source” is not defined in
Appeal 2011-000134
Application 11/563,230

6
the Specification. Ans. 13. Consequently, the Examiner may adopt the
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellants’ Specification.
See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
We find that the plain language of the limitation reciting that the “song is
played from a local source,” means that the sound is emanating from a
source that is localized in the vicinity of the listener. We consequently
agree with the Examiner’s reasonable interpretation that the “PC or other
processor-based system with network connectivity” taught by Brandt
corresponds to claim 1’s “local source” that plays audio content. See Ans.
13.
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that Brandt teaches or
suggests that the content, along with its supplemental information, is
provided to the user equipment in real time (i.e., while the content is being
played). Brandt teaches that: “[P]rogram provider 104 can provide to data
server 116 an identification of the broadcast materials that are being
broadcast or otherwise provided to user equipment 112. This data can be
sent in real time as the broadcast materials are being broadcast or otherwise
sent to user equipment 112.” Brandt, col. 6, ll. 34-39; see Ans. 14. We
therefore find that Brandt teaches “sending, from the audio device, a request
to a remote server for supplemental information related to a song in real
time while the song is playing” as recited in claim 1.
We also agree with the Examiner that Curtin teaches sending a
request to a remote server to acquire supplemental information about an
audio song of interest. Ans. 15. Curtin teaches:
The extracted music information stored in the RAM 114 or in a
memory card or other storage device is transmitted to a music
server over the above-noted network connection. The server
Appeal 2011-000134
Application 11/563,230

7
may then respond with detailed information about the
corresponding music selections and instructions to the user
regarding how to make the purchase.

Curtin, col. 5, ll. 3-8; see Ans. 15. We agree with the Examiner that Curtin
thus teaches sending “a request to a remote server for supplemental
information related to a song … and … receiving, by the audio device, the
supplemental information from the remote server” and conclude that the
Examiner did not err in so finding.
We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that
the combination of Brandt and Curtin teaches or suggests the limitation of
claim 1 reciting “sending, from the audio device, a request to a remote
server for supplemental information related to a song in real time while the
song is playing from a local source associated with the audio device.”

B. Claims 5, 6, 13, and 22

Appellants argue that the cited prior art references do not teach the
limitations of claims 5, 6, 13, and 22, which they contend are distinctly
patentable. App. Br. 9-10. However, Appellants’ arguments consist of
nothing more than a recitation of the language of the disputed limitations
and a bare assertion that the prior art references do not teach or suggest
those limitations. Id. As such, Appellants’ arguments do not rise to a level
sufficient to overcome the Examiner’s prima facie findings of obviousness.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii); see In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed.
Cir. 2011): (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to
require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation
of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements
Appeal 2011-000134
Application 11/563,230

8
were not found in the prior art”). We consequently affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 5, 6, 13, and 22.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-22 and 45-51 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

ke