Ex Parte Childs et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 19, 2017

13690169 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2017)

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.
13/690,169 11/30/2012 Philip Lee Childs RPS920120031USNP(710.207) 7983
58127 7590 04/19/2017
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
EXAMINER
HUYNH, AN SON PHI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/19/2017 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 PHILIP LEE CHILDS, MICHAEL TERRELL VANOVER, HUI
WANG, and SHAOWEI CHEN
Appeal 2017-000886
Application 13/690,169
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and LINZY T.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-0032300886
Application 11/045,514
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3,7, 10-13, 16, and 19—21, which constitute all
the claims pending in this application. Claims 2, 4—6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 17, and
18 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1,13, and 20 are independent and pertain to a method (see
e.g., claim 1), information handling device (see e.g., claim 13), and a
program product including computer program code to perform a method
including authorizing a destination user device to access media files resident
on a source user device and playing back the media files at a destination user
device using a cloud account device (see e.g., claim 20) (Spec. Tflf 1,2; Fig.
3; Abs.; Title). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below with emphases
added:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, at a cloud account device, login data from a
controller user device;
providing, from the cloud account device, a listing of
available source user devices based on the login data received
from the controller user device;
receiving, at the cloud account device, an authorization
for the controller user device from a destination user device
associated with a cloud account of another user;
providing, from the cloud account device, a listing of
available destination user devices to the controller user device
based on the login data received from the controller user device;
receiving, at the cloud account device, selection
2
Appeal 2010-0032300886
Application 11/045,514
information from the controller user device, the selection
information comprising identification of a source user
device, one or more media files, and one or more destination
user devices',
authorizing, at the cloud account device, access to one or
more media files resident on the source user device based on
the login data; and
issuing an instruction to the source user device
instructing the source user device to transfer one or more
media files to one or more destination user devices for access
by the one or more destination user devices.
Remaining independent claims 13 and 20 recite similar limitations as
recited in the method of claim 1, and correspond to an information handling
device and program product to perform the method of claim 1.
The Examiner s Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 7, 10—13, 16, and 19—21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ellis (US
2007/0157281 Al; published Jul. 5, 2007), Conness (US 2009/0133069 Al;
published May 21, 2009), Arrouye (US 2013/0311598 Al; published Nov.
21, 2013 and filed May 16, 2012), and Bryant (US 8,418,206 B2; issued
Apr. 9, 2013 and filed Mar. 22, 2007). Final Act. 7—16.
3
Appeal 2010-0032300886
Application 11/045,514
Principal Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the briefs (App. Br. 14—18; Reply
Br. 17—22) in response to the Examiner’s rejection (Final Act. 7—16), the
following principal issue is presented on appeal:1 * * 4
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1,3,7, 10-13, 16, and 19—21
over the combination of Ellis, Conness, Arrouye, and Bryant because the
combination fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of a method of
authorizing a destination user device to access media files resident on a
source user device and play back the media files at a destination user device
using a cloud account device, as recited in representative independent claim
1?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 7—16) in light
of Appellants’ contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 14—18) and the
Reply Brief (Reply Br. 7—22) that the Examiner has erred, as well as the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 12—
17).
1 Appellants argue independent claims 1,13, and 20 as a group, and argue
only the merits of claim 1 (App. Br. 14—19; Reply Br. 17—21), relying on
these arguments for the patentability of the remaining claims. Independent
claims 1,13, and 20 each recite similar limitations pertaining to a method of
authorizing a destination user device to access media files resident on a
source user device and play back the media files at a destination user device
using a cloud account device. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as
representative of the group of claims 1,3,7, 10-13, 16, and 19—21 rejected
over Ellis, Conness, Arrouye, and Bryant.
4
Appeal 2010-0032300886
Application 11/045,514
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments as to independent claims 1,
13, and 20. With regard to representative independent claim 1, we adopt as
our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 7—12), and (2) the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to the
Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 2—7). We provide the following for
emphasis.
We note that each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not
in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as
a whole. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(finding one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references).
In this light, Appellants’ arguments presented as to each individual reference
(see App. Br. 14—17; Reply Br. 17—21) are not persuasive inasmuch as the
Examiner relies on a properly made combination of Ellis, Conness, Arrouye,
and Bryant to support the conclusion of obviousness of the subject matter of
representative independent claim 1. Appellants have not rebutted or
otherwise shown the Examiner’s explanation of the combination of the
collective teachings and suggestions of the applied references (see Ans. 12—
17) made in response to the Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief
(regarding the references individually) to be in error. Appellants’ Reply
Brief does not convince us otherwise.
With regard to Appellants’ primary argument (App. Br. 15—16; Reply
Br. 19), that Ellis is drawn to a home network and not a cloud network, we
agree with the Examiner (Ans. 12—14) that Appellants are arguing a different
embodiment than the one relied upon by the Examiner. We also agree with
5
Appeal 2010-0032300886
Application 11/045,514
the Examiner that (i) Ellis teaches an accounting device (Final Act. 8; Ans.
3), and (ii) Arrouye teaches or suggests a cloud accounting device (Final
Act. 11; Ans. 6).
Furthermore, Appellants’ Reply Brief does not respond to the
Examiner’s finding (see Ans. 17) that a cloud account device or cloud
networking server for receiving authorization from a user device to send
content to another (i.e., destination) device was well-known in the art at the
time of Appellants’ invention, as supported by several prior-art references.2 * * * 6
Therefore, Appellants have not timely responded to the Examiner’s Official
Notice that a cloud account device was known for sharing content. In any
event, we agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 11; Ans. 6 and 13) that
Arrouye teaches or suggests the recited cloud account device. Notably,
Appellants admit that “Arrouye is directed to a system of cloud-based data
item sharing” (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 21).
To the extent Appellants present new arguments for the first time in
their Reply Brief— that Ellis “does not suggest a three device arrangement,
as claimed” (Reply Br. 18—19), Appellants do not provide a compelling
explanation for why this argument was not previously presented. Therefore,
this argument is waived. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473—74
(BPAI 2010) (informative opinion) (absent a showing of good cause, the
2 Appellants’ contention (Reply Br. 17) that the Examiner’s Answer simply
restates the rejection and “maintain[s] the same basic thrust” as made in the
Final Office Action are incorrect. The Examiner has clearly set forth new
findings pertaining to Official Notice that a cloud account device or cloud
networking server for receiving authorization from a user device to send
content to another (i.e., destination) device was well-known in the art at the
time of Appellants’ invention (see Ans. 17).
6
Appeal 2010-0032300886
Application 11/045,514
Board is not required to address an argument newly presented in the reply
brief that could have been presented in the principal brief on appeal); 37
C.F.R. §41.41(b)(2) (same). Even so, we find that the combination of
references teaches or suggests such a three device arrangement.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of representative independent claim 1, as well as the remaining
claims on appeal grouped therewith.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 7, 10—13, 16, and
19—21 over the combination of Ellis, Conness, Arrouye, and Bryant because
the base combination fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of a
method of authorizing a destination user device to access media files
resident on a source user device and play back the media files at a
destination user device using a cloud account device, as recited in
representative independent claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 10—13, 16, and 19—21
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7