Ex Parte anDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 21, 201411121204 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte CHEOL-HONG AN ____________________ Appeal 2011-010148 Application 11/121,204 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-010148 Application 11/121,204 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-6, 13-18, and 33 (App. Br. 4). Claims 7-12 and 19-32 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. A. INVENTION Appellant’s invention is directed to a method of sharing Audio/Video (A/V) content from a source device within a network, including transmitting a request to transmit the shared A/V content from a sink device to the source device and receiving the shared A/V content in response to the request (Abstract). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method of sharing A/V (audio/visual) content through a network, the method comprising: receiving information regarding a first sink device that is sharing the A/V content from a source device which provides the A/V content; transmitting a request for the shared A/V content, to the source device; and at a second sink device, receiving the shared A/V content from the source device in response to the request. C. REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Chiu US 2004/0068756 A1 Apr. 8, 2004 Appeal 2011-010148 Application 11/121,204 3 Li US 2004/0230655 A1 Nov. 18, 2004 Claims 1-3, 13, 14, 18, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Li. Claims 4, 5, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li. Claims 6 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li in view of Chiu. II. ISSUES The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in finding that Li teaches “receiving information regarding a first sink device that is sharing the A/V content from a source device which provides the A/V content” and “transmitting a request for the shared A/V content, to the source device” (claim 1, emphasis added). In particular, the issue turns upon whether Li’s method of transmitting media from one participant to another indirectly through a server comprises transmitting a request for A/V content from a source device and receiving the same from the source device. III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Li 1. Li discloses a system that plays video conference data having a media sharing client module 164 (software that allows the participant to send media being shared or exchanged to a media management server 172) whereby, during the meeting, the participants are enabled to share or Appeal 2011-010148 Application 11/121,204 4 exchange media, such as POWERPOINT presentations, annotations, images, etc. by uploading the media to the media management server 172 in binary form (¶ [0038]). 2. A meeting scheduling service module 178 enables a user to initiate or join a video conference session, and in response a web server 174 downloads software to the user’s device that is needed for participating or viewing the videoconference session (¶ [0040]). The media management server 172 connects to the appropriate media transport server through meeting scheduling service module 178 to enable the videoconference session (id.). IV. ANALYSIS Claims 1-3, 13, 14, 18, and 33 Appellant contends that although “Li teaches a videoconferencing system which allows participants involved in the video conference session to share media with each other,” where “during the meeting, a participant will send media, for example, a POWERPOINT presentation to another participant via the server;’ yet, “the server is not the source of the media” (App. Br. 10). Appellant argues that “there is no teaching or suggestion in Li of ‘transmitting a request for the shared A/V content, to the source device,’” “since a participant may join a videoconference before media . . . is transmitted to/from another participant” (id., emphasis omitted). However, the Examiner finds that “Li discloses the media management server 172, as the claimed source device, receiving the media to be shared, such as audio/video clips, i.e., providing the A/V content” (Ans. 9). The Examiner notes that “[d]ata is indeed sent from the server, as Appeal 2011-010148 Application 11/121,204 5 acknowledged by the Appellant” (Ans. 9-10). The Examiner finds further that a participant [that] uses a web browser to join a videoconference, i.e., the web browser implicitly send[s] an HTTP request to the server, or transmit[s] a request for the A/V content, which is other participants’ image and voice inherent in a videoconference, and optionally other participants’ media which include audio/video clips (Ans. 11, emphases omitted). We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claim 1 does not define “source device” other than it provides the A/V content. Thus, we give “source device” its broadest reasonable interpretation as a device that provides A/V content. Li is directed to a system that plays video conference data and allows each participant to send media that it desires to share or exchange to a media management server (FF 1). A user can join a video conference session where the web server automatically downloads software for participating or viewing the videoconference session (FF 2). We find no error in the Examiner’s finding that Li discloses that the media management server is a device that provides A/V content (Ans. 9). We further find no error in the Examiner’s finding that Li also discloses that the user initiates and transmits a request of shared A/V content to the server when it issues a request to join a video conference session (Ans. 11). In view of our claim construction above, we find that Li discloses all contested claim limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Li. Further, independent claim 13, having Appeal 2011-010148 Application 11/121,204 6 similar claim language, and claims 2, 3, 14, 18, and 33 (depending from claims 1 and 13), which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 1. Claims 4-6 and 15-17 Appellant argues that claims 4-6 and 15-17 are patentable over the cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 13). Appellant contends that “Chiu does not make up for the above-noted deficiencies of Li” (id.). As noted supra, however, we find that Li teaches all the features of claim 1. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 5, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Li and of claims 6 and 17 over Li in view of Chiu. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 13, 14, 18, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and claims 4-6 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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 Bab Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation