Ex Parte YoungDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 25, 201210621153 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 25, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte JOEL K. YOUNG ____________ Appeal 2010-006537 Application 10/621,153 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before DENISE M. POTHIER, ERIC B. CHEN, and BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006537 Application 10/621,153 2 SUMMARY Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 and 3-24. Claims 2 and 26 have been canceled. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates to a data communications network in which a web client communicates with a media server to configure a playlist and in which the media server can pull video content from a selected video file on a video file server and display the video. (Abstract). Claim 25, reproduced below, is illustrative. 25. A method of distributing video information, comprising: from a first network location, configuring a playlist of video files, the video files being stored in at least one second network location connected to the first network location via the network and the playlist configured in a third location, wherein the playlist is configured at least in part by logging into the third location with a web browser; and from the third network location, connected to the first and second network locations via the network, executing the playlist, including: pulling video content associated with two or more video files from the second network location over the network according to the playlist; translating the video content at the third network location into a video output signal suitable for display; and Appeal 2010-006537 Application 10/621,153 3 executing logical actions included in the playlist, wherein the playlist includes at least one track, wherein the track includes an identifier to select one or more of the number of video files and includes at least one logical action related to playing the playlist. THE REJECTIONS Claims 25 and 27-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by US 2002/0138641 A1 (Taylor), published September 26, 2002. Claims 1, 7-9, 14-18, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0028208 A1 (Ellis), published February 3, 2005 in view of Taylor. Claims 10, 19, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ellis in view of Taylor and in further view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0007485 A1 (Rodriguez), published January 17, 2002. Claims 3-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ellis in view of Taylor and in further view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0135857 A1 (Pendakur), published July 17, 2003. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ellis in view of Taylor, further in view of Pendakur, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0056217 A1 (Brooks), published March 20, 2003. Appeal 2010-006537 Application 10/621,153 4 Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ellis in view of Taylor, further in view of Rodriguez and further in view of Brooks. Rejection of Claims 25 and 27-36 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) CONTENTIONS In rejecting independent claim 25 as anticipated, the Examiner maps the claimed first network location to Taylor's proxy server 420 and database 425, the claimed second network location to Taylor's media content servers 405, 410, 415, and the claimed third network location to Taylor's client and Windows Media Player (WMP). (Ans. 18).1 The Examiner finds that the claimed track is a playlist played back by the WMP and that the playlist includes identifiers (e.g., mediaClip 1.ref) to indicate that the clip should be retrieved from the media content server. (Ans. 4). The Examiner notes that in the flow diagram of Figure 6, Taylor discloses that, using a browser or streaming media player (e.g., WMP), a user on client 300 requests a playlist of video files from proxy server 420 and that the proxy server builds an actual playlist based on user preferences and sends that playlist to the client. (Ans. 19). When the media player executes the playlist received from proxy server 420, the media player is redirected to media content servers (405, 410, 415) to retrieve the actual audio/video files. Id. 1 Throughout, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed on August 4, 2009 and the Examiner’s Answer mailed on November 25, 2009. Appeal 2010-006537 Application 10/621,153 5 Appellant argues that by following the reasoning of the Examiner, the playlist is configured from the third location (mapped by the Examiner to Taylor’s client) when a user logs in, instead of from the first location (mapped by the Examiner to Taylor’s proxy server) as claimed. (Br. 12). The Examiner responds that while claim 25 recites configuring a playlist of video files from the first location, the relevant part of Appellant’s Specification (page 8, line 28) does not define the tasks included in the configuring step. The Examiner broadly construes the configuring step to include the proxy server 420 constructing and building the playlist based on user preferences. (Ans. 19). Appellant also contends that in Taylor the third network location does not pull video from the second network location. (Br. 12). The Examiner finds that steps 640-645 in Figure 6 of Taylor disclose this claim limitation. (Ans. 20). Concerning claim 34, the Examiner maps the claimed web client to Taylor's proxy server 420, the claimed video file server to Taylor's media content server, and the claimed media server to Taylor's client 300. (Ans. 20). In response to this rejection, Appellant argues that in Taylor, the user and browser are at the client 300 rather than connected via a network, so that Taylor does not teach a web client configuring a playlist by logging into the media server through a network using a web browser. (Br. 13). In response, the Examiner’s Answer clarifies that the elements of independent claim 34 map to Taylor in a similar manner to the mapping of claim 25. (See Ans. 20). The Examiner finds that Figure 4 of Taylor shows proxy Appeal 2010-006537 Application 10/621,153 6 server 420 (i.e., the claimed "web client") located remotely from the client (i.e., the claimed "media server") via the Internet (i.e., the claimed "network"), so that Taylor discloses the claimed structure. (Ans. 21). Appellant argues that Taylor's proxy server is not configured to convert pulled video content into a video output signal as a function of the logical actions of the playlist. (Br. 13). Reading Taylor's proxy server on the claimed web client and Taylor's client 300 on the claimed media server, the Examiner finds that Taylor’s client 300 embodies the media player (WMP), which converts the streaming media into a video signal for display when receiving a play command. (Ans. 21). Appellant argues that Taylor's playlist does not include a track with an identifier and at least one logical action related to playing the playlist. (Br. 14). The Examiner finds that Taylor's playlist as shown in Figure 5 includes a track with an identifier and a hyperlink and, citing to page 14 [sic], lines 13-252 of Appellant’s Specification, a logical action related to the playlist includes a hyperlink. (Ans. 22). ANALYSIS Claim 25 recites a method of distributing video that begins with the step of: from a first network location, configuring a playlist of video files…the playlist configured in a third 2 The correct citation is page 4, lines 13-25 of Appellant’s Specification. Appeal 2010-006537 Application 10/621,153 7 location, wherein the playlist is configured at least in part by logging into the third location with a web browser . . . . In Taylor, a user logs into client 300 (the third claimed location, as identified by the Examiner) and uses a browser to connect to a media server 420 (the first claimed location, as identified by the Examiner). ¶[0035]. In Taylor, when the client 300 (i.e., the claimed “third locationâ€) connects to the proxy server 420 via the Internet, the proxy server (i.e., the claimed “first locationâ€) configures a playlist, which the proxy server then transmits to the client. ¶¶[0036], [0047]. Thus, the playlist is configured, at least in part, by logging into the third location with a web browser, as recited in claim 25. Also, Taylor’s playlist may include references to actual media clips, references to clips on the proxy server that will be redirected to the media content servers (i.e., the claimed “second network location,†as identified by the Examiner) as the streaming media player requests each clip or a combination of both. ¶ [0047]. In contrast to Appellant’s argument that Taylor only discloses the streaming media player requesting video from the proxy server (Br. 13), in Taylor, if the streaming media player on client 300 (i.e., the claimed “third network locationâ€) is given an actual playlist, the streaming media player refers to the appropriate media content servers and requests the media as the playlist is played. ¶ [0051]. Thus, using the media player to translate the video output into a suitable signal for display, Taylor’s client 300 (i.e., the Appeal 2010-006537 Application 10/621,153 8 claimed “third locationâ€) executes the playlist by pulling content from the media content servers (the second claimed location). ¶¶ [0049-0051]. Appellant argues that the Examiner incorrectly takes the position that merely including a track in a playlist is a logical action. (Br. 14). The playlist in Taylor has at least one track including an identifier to select the video files in a sequence (see Play List shown in Fig. 5 that include media clip 1 referred to at Ans. 4) and, because logical actions relating to playing the playlist include the actual sequence of files in the playlist, (Spec. p. 4, l. 11), features of a media player, such as start and stop times (Spec. p. 4, ll. 15-18) and hyperlinks (Spec. p. 4, l. 18), the playlist in Taylor includes at least one logical action, as recited in claim 25. Having found all the elements of claim 25 in Taylor, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that Taylor anticipates claim 25. Claim 34 is a system claim which recites limitations similar to those of method claim 25. Appellant makes similar arguments as those associated with claim 25 and has not replied to the mapping of the system’s elements as clarified in the Examiner’s Answer (see Ans. 20-22). Therefore, for the same reasons as those discussed above concerning claim 25, we find no error in the Examiner’s conclusion that Taylor anticipates claim 34. Appellant does not separately argue dependent claims 27-33, 35, and 36, and we sustain the Examiner’s finding that these claims are also anticipated by Taylor for the above-discussed reasons. Appeal 2010-006537 Application 10/621,153 9 Rejection of claims 1 and 3-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) CONTENTIONS The rejection of claim 1 is representative of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7-9, 14-18, 23, and 24 as unpatentable over Ellis in view of Taylor. The Examiner maps: (a) the claimed video display to television 36; (b) the claimed video file server to server 242 in the TV distribution facility 238; (c) the claimed media server to set-top box 28 and 248; and (d) the claimed web client to remote program guide access device 24 to communicate with the media server through a network. (Ans. 8-9). The Examiner finds that the video file server in Ellis includes video content to be selectively displayed on at least one video display, e.g., in the disclosure at paragraph [0130], lines 1-6 of the display for ordering pay-per-view video. (Ans. 9). Noting that Ellis does not teach the remaining features of the claim, the Examiner finds that Taylor discloses these missing limitations, including the playlist and the media server configuration, using similar findings as those discussed above in connection with claim 25. (Ans. 9). Appellant contends that the playlist in Taylor does not include a track as recited in the claims. (Br. 18). Appellant further contends that Ellis does not teach or suggest a media server that executes the playlist to control video content on the video display, but instead, relates to a program guide to play a program according to user input. (Br. 18). Referring to Figures 2a and 27, the Examiner responds that the system of Ellis includes a set top box which Appeal 2010-006537 Application 10/621,153 10 provides the user access to an interactive television program guide and plays a television program, thus meeting the claim requirements of the media server to control video content on the video display. (Ans. 24). Appellant further contends that one of ordinary skill would not reasonably be led to combine Ellis and Taylor because Ellis already provides a listing of available programs from which the user can choose, so the user selected playlist of Taylor would not add anything to the system of Ellis. (Br. 19). Claim 10 is representative of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 19, 20, and 22. In rejecting claim 10, the Examiner further finds that paragraphs [0051] and [0052] of Rodriguez disclose the recited limitations. (Ans. 13-15). Appellant, responding specifically only with respect to claim 10, argues that the video on demand features in Rodriguez refer to a rental selection screen 110 and not to a number of times to play the files in the playlist. (Br. 20). Appellant offers no other specific response to the Examiner’s findings concerning Pendakur or Brooks in combination with Ellis and Taylor or Ellis, Taylor, and Rodriguez. (Br. 21-22). ANALYSIS The § 103 Rejection of Claims 1, 7-9, 14-18, 23, and 24 Appellant argues claims 1, 7-9, 14-18, 23, and 24 as a group. Claim 1 is representative. Claim 1 is a system claim quite similar to claim 34 previously discussed herein. The Examiner’s reliance on Ellis in the Appeal 2010-006537 Application 10/621,153 11 rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) appears to be redundant, since, as discussed above, Taylor discloses the web client, video file server and media server recited in independent claim 1 and the media server with a memory and processor having the features recited in independent claim 16. Turning to the Examiner's application of Ellis, however, we note that Ellis discloses an interactive television program guide with a remote access device connected to the interactive television program guide equipment by a remote-access link to provide the user with remote access to program guide functions. (Abstract). The user can adjust the program guide settings, which include program reminders, program profiles, and recording features. (Abstract). Ellis discloses that the remote program access device 24 (mapped to the claimed web client at Ans. 9) may be a user's personal computer, (¶ [0099]), and that communications between the remote guide access device 24 and interactive television program guide equipment may take place over an Internet link. ¶ [0097]. Ellis discloses that the remote program guide access device 24 (mapped to the claimed web client) can communicate via a client-server architecture with the media server, which the Examiner maps to the user television equipment, including a set-top box (Ans. 11). ¶ [0071]. In Ellis, server 242 in the television distribution facility implements a client-server based interactive television program guide. ¶ [0184]. Server 242 thus constitutes the claimed video server, which includes a number of video files. The video files include television program listings (¶ [0188]), Appeal 2010-006537 Application 10/621,153 12 scheduled television programming, pay programming, advertising and promotional videos (¶ [0189]), as well as interfaces for purchasing services such as pay-for-view (¶ [0130]). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the video display, video file server, media server and web client are taught by Ellis. The remaining features of claim 1 correspond to the features recited in claims 25 and 34, which we have already determined are disclosed by Taylor. We note Appellant’s argument that the media clip information 515 in Taylor, refers to a nonexistent file or document on a proxy server. (Br. 18). Appellant takes this isolated phrase from Taylor out of context,3 and this sole passage does not change our above conclusions. We disagree with Appellant’s statement that, because Ellis discloses a program listing of available programs from which the user can choose, Taylor has nothing to do with Ellis (Br. 19). Taylor teaches a producer how to assemble and distribute a playlist which can be changed (¶[0007]) and provides some reason to combine its teaching with Ellis (see Ans. 10). Thus, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding claims 1, 7-9, 14-18, 23, and 24 are obvious over Ellis in view of Taylor. 3 Paragraph [0043] of Taylor states that media clip location information 515 and clip information 520 typically serve as “placeholders†to cause the streaming media player to request a media clip from the server. Appeal 2010-006537 Application 10/621,153 13 The Rejections of Claims 3-6, 10-13, and 19-22 We sustain the rejection of claims 3-6, 11-13, and 19-22 because Appellant has advanced no separate arguments in addition to those discussed above concerning independent claims 1 or 16. Turning to claim 10, Appellant argues that the portion of Rodriguez cited by the Examiner discloses the rental period for a video on demand system, rather than the number of times to play files in a playlist. Because claim 10 recites only the track having a logical action that includes the number of times to play the file or merely recites what the action represents, rather fails to actually perform the action of limiting the number of plays, this recitation does not further limit the claim functionally. Such non- functional descriptive material does not patentably distinguish over prior art that otherwise renders the claim unpatentable. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10. CONCLUSION Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding that Taylor anticipates claims 25 and 27-36. Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 3-24 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2010-006537 Application 10/621,153 14 ORDER The rejection of claims 25 and 27-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Taylor is affirmed. The rejection of claims 1, 7-9, 14-18, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ellis in view of Taylor is affirmed. The rejection of claims 10, 19, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ellis in view of Taylor and in further view of Rodriguez is affirmed. The rejection of claims and 3-6 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ellis in view of Taylor and in further view of Pendakur is affirmed. The rejection of claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ellis in view of Taylor, further in view of Pendakur is affirmed. The rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ellis in view of Taylor and further in view of Pendakur and further in view of Brooks 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED rwk Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation