Ex Parte Spurgat et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 14, 2016

13612837 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/612,837 09/13/2012 Jeffrey Jonathan Spurgat
107193 7590 10/18/2016
Keller Jolley Preece/Facebook
1010 North 500 East
Suite 210
North Salt Lake, UT 84054
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.
19487.195.1.1 4820
EXAMINER
OBAID,FATEHM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/18/2016 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):
docketing@kjpip.com
gjolley@kjpip.com
tkusitor@kjpip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY JONATHAN SPURGAT,
STEPHEN CHRISTOPHER GLADWIN,
and HOYET HARRISON ANDREWS III
Appeal2014--004818
Application 13/612,837
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Jeffrey Jonathan Spurgat, Stephen Christopher Gladwin, and Hoyet
Harrison Andrews III (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a
final rejection of claims 1-34, the only claims pending in the application on
appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.," filed November 25, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed February
27, 2014), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed December 27, 2013),
and Final Action ("Final Act.," mailed June 25, 2013).
Appeal2014-004818
Application 13/612,837
The Appellants invented an audio gateway device that is adapted to be
used in a network of one or more digital audio playback devices which
provides a gateway to the Internet for such digital audio playback devices
and provides additional functionality such as synchronizing the digital audio
content and playlists between the digital audio playback devices.
Specification para. 2.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A method comprising:
[ 1] receiving,
from a user
associated with a first digital content device,
a request to present digital content to the user;
[2] receiving information associated with a presentation of the
digital content
and
by a second digital content device
associated with the user,
wherein the information associated with the presentation
of the digital content by the second digital content device
comprises a current position;
[3] presenting,
by the first digital content device,
the digital content beginning from the current position of
the presentation of the digital content.
2
Appeal2014-004818
Application 13/612,837
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Qureshey
Balog
US 2002/0002039 Al
US 2002/0022453 Al
Jan.3,2002
Feb.21,2002
Claims 1-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Qureshey and Balog. 2
ISSUES
The issues of obviousness tum primarily on whether the art describes
receiving a current position for media play in one device and beginning
presentation from that position in another device.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Qureshey
01. Qureshey is directed to management and distribution of audio
files over a computer network such as the Internet. Qureshey
para. 3.
02. Qureshey Fig. 6B shows the conceptual relationship between
the site 602 and other Web sites that supply streaming audio
information, such as a site 630, a site 631, and a site 632. The
2 A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph was withdrawn.
Ans. 2.
3
Appeal2014-004818
Application 13/612,837
Internet provides the ability to transfer data between any two of
the sites 602, 630-632. The user connects, through the ISP 232,
to the site 602. The site 602 provides links to the sites 630-632
through the programming lists provided by the site 602. If the
user selects a streaming audio program from one of the sites
630-632, then the site 602 provides the necessary link to the
selected site. In some embodiments, the site 602 provides the link
information to the intelligent radio 100, and the intelligent radio
100 makes a "direct" connection to the selected site. In other
embodiments, the site 602 links to the selected site, receives the
streaming audio data, reformats the data if desired, and then sends
the streaming audio data to the intelligent radio 100. Qureshey
para. 111.
03. Qureshey Fig. 18H shows, when the CD player is being played,
menu buttons 1821-1825 that change context to correspond to
icons 1841-1844. The icons 1841-1845 show, respectively, a
previous track icon 1841 corresponding to a previous track
function 1892, a pause icon corresponding 1842 to a pause
function 1894, a next track icon 1843 corresponding to a next
track function 1896, and a stop icon 1844 corresponding to a stop
play function 1898. Qureshey para. 172.
04. Qureshey Figs. 20A-20F illustrate the use of the action button
1210 on the network-enabled audio devices 1200 or 1300. The
menu buttons 1821-1825 represent the functions that can be
performed on the given audio source before the action button 1210
is pressed. For an MP3 file, for example, the menu buttons
4
Appeal2014-004818
Application 13/612,837
Balog
1821-1825 correspond to a "pause" function, a "next" function, a
"previous" function, an "add favorites" function, and a "stop"
function. Qureshey para. 180.
05. Balog is directed to the distribution of content in a mobile
communication network, more particularly it relates to
determining an optimal protocol and to selecting a device for
successful content delivery. Balog para. 1.
06. Fig. 7 is similar to the preferred embodiment of Fig. 1, except
with two or more devices 52, 54 and 56 communicatively coupled
to each other in an ad hoc network, with one of the devices 52
coupled to the communication network 18 via an access point 20.
The devices 54 and 56 may be out of range of the access point 20
and do not have a direct communication path to the network 18
via the access point 22, as dictated by the operating specifications
of the communication standard, such as BLUE TOOTH. In the
event that the device 5 6 is selected by the target selector 24 from a
list of available devices 52, 54 and 56, then the device 52 acts as
an intermediary for routing the content to device 56, preferably via
BLUETOOTH technology. For example, voice content may be
sent via the access point 20 to the device 52, such as a personal
computer to the device 52, which can be a telephone, as this
device 56 would be best suited for such content. Therefore, the
access point 20 serves as a wireless to wire-line gateway between
5
Appeal2014-004818
Application 13/612,837
the communication network and any wireless device within the
coverage area. Balog para. 41. There is no description of
recording current position in this paragraph.
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the art applied fails to
describe "receiving information associated with a presentation of the digital
content by a second digital content device associated with the user, wherein
the information associated with the presentation of the digital content by the
second digital content device comprises a current position." App. Br. 10;
Claim 1 Limitation [2]. The Examiner initially cites Qureshey Fig. 6B and
Balog Figs. 1 and 7. Final Act. 3. None of these figures or related text
discuss receiving information as to current position per se. But the
Examiner finds Qureshey describing a current position in the references in a
discussion of a pause and start function. Ans. 4; FF 03 and 04.
A pause function would necessarily track a current position, but both
independent claims recite that the digital content is presented in a device
different from the device that receives the current position, and Qureshey at
best presents analog content in a device different from that presenting the
pause function. Qureshey Figs. 8 and 9.
As to the portions of the references originally cited by the Examiner, it is
possible the Examiner interpreted the streaming and Bluetooth technologies
described in those portions as passing some form of current position as part
of their protocols. The problem with such an interpretation, aside from the
lack of evidence as to this aspect of the protocols, is that the current position
6
Appeal2014-004818
Application 13/612,837
for transmission by these protocols is not necessarily the current position for
presentation as recited in the claims due to data buffering.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Qureshey and Balog is improper.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-34 is reversed.
REVERSED
7