11744981 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2013)

Ex Parte Branam et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 16, 2013

11744981 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 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. 11/744,981 05/07/2007 Michael Branam 060134 (BLL0388US) 9961 36192 7590 10/17/2013 AT&T Legal Department - CC Attn: Patent Docketing Room 2A-207 One AT&T Way Bedminster, NJ 07921 EXAMINER LIANG, VEI CHUNG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2800 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/17/2013 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 MICHAEL BRANAM and AKBAR PIRANI ____________ Appeal 2011-005517 Application 11/744,981 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and PETER P. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2011-005517 Application 11/744,981 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ invention relates to centralized media management and delivery services for media content (see Spec. ¶ [0002]). Exemplary Claim Independent claim 1 is exemplary of the claims under appeal and reads as follows with the disputed features highlighted: 1. A method for providing media management services, comprising: creating an account record for a user identification received from a network-enabled media recording device and storing the user identification in the account record; mapping the user identification to a storage space allocated for a user associated with the user identification, the storage space storing a media file received from the network- enabled media recording device; presenting a menu of options to the user via the network-enabled media recording device, the options operable for: defining an authorization requirement for controlling access by a target viewer to the media file; and managing account information, account preferences, media devices, and media files associated with the network- enabled media recording device, the account preferences including rules for selecting a communications path by the user for transmission of a media file; and storing selections received from the media recording device in the account record, the selections received in response to presenting the menu of options. Appeal 2011-005517 Application 11/744,981 3 Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Yoshimine (US 2005/0223041 A1). (See Ans. 3-12). The Examiner rejected dependent claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 18, and 19 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Yoshimine and Kang (US 2007/0201823 A1). (See Ans. 12-14). Appellants’ Contentions 1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 8, and 14 because Yoshimine’s disclosure in paragraph 184 fails to disclose the disputed features of claim 1, and those similarly recited in independent claims 8 and 14 (App. Br. 6). Appellants point to paragraphs 201 and 202 of Yoshimine and assert that the reference includes no disclosure related to “menu options ‘operable for . . . [each of] managing account information, account preferences, media devices, and media files associated with the network-enabled media recording device’” (App. Br. 7). 2. Additionally, Appellants argue that the Examiner improperly equated “clicking on a URL” as the claimed “rules for selecting a communications path by the user for transmission of a media file” because a URL is a destination address and would not be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be the same as a communication path, which is a pathway to a destination (id.). 3. With respect to claims 4, 11, and 17, Appellants contend that the relied-on portions of Yoshimine do not teach the recited “differentiating Appeal 2011-005517 Application 11/744,981 4 within a content listing live media streams from stored media files in a listing via visual contrast and/or audio elements . . .” (App. Br. 8-9). 4. Appellants argue the patentability of the remaining claims based on the same reasons presented for the independent claims, or Kang’s failure to cure the alleged deficiencies of Yoshimine (App. Br. 9). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the rebuttals to arguments expressed by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 14-19). With respect to Appellants’ first contention, we agree with the Examiner that Yoshimine discloses the claimed “account preferences” as the user-determined channel setting, which is further consistent with Appellants’ disclosure describing the disputed term as transmission preferences (Ans. 15 (citing Spec. ¶ [0064])). Similarly, we agree with the Examiner’s findings with respect to Yoshimine’s disclosure of the claimed “media devices” and “media files” and adopt them as our own (see Ans. 15-16). Regarding Appellants’ second contention, we also agree with the Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited term “communications path” as the association between the location address (e.g., URL) of the personal channel and a media recording device (Ans. 17 (citing Spec. ¶ [0038])). Furthermore, Appellants’ Specification identifies wireless or wireline network connections as examples of the recited communications Appeal 2011-005517 Application 11/744,981 5 path (Spec. ¶ [0032]). Therefore, contrary to Appellants’ contentions (Reply Br. 4) and as explained by the Examiner (Ans. 17), Yoshimine’s user selection of the URL is via a connection which in effect defines a communications path to the personal channel for accessing the user’s media recording. We also observe that selecting a URL to determine a communications path to the user’s channel for media transmission is not precluded by the instant claims. Regarding Appellants’ third contention, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions (see Ans. 18-19). CONCLUSIONS 1. The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-4, 7-11, 14- 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Yoshimine. 2. The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 18, and 19 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Yoshimine and Kang. 3. Claims 1-20 are not patentable. 1 1 We have decided the appeal before us. However, we note that paragraph 71 of Appellants’ Specification discloses that the computer program code is transmitted over a transmission medium. Should there be further prosecution of these claims, particularly claim 14 which recites a computer program product, the Examiner’s attention is directed to Ex parte Mewherter, 2013 WL 3291360 (PTAB May 8, 2013) (precedential); In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007); and Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 OFF. GAZ. PAT. OFFICE 212 (Feb. 23, 2010); see also the Director’s Memo Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010). Appeal 2011-005517 Application 11/744,981 6 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 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 ELD