Ex Parte Harville et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 8, 2014

10698196 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 8, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MICHAEL HARVILLE, MICHELE COVELL,
JOHN ANKCORN, JOHN APOSTOLOPOULOS, SUMIT ROY,
BO SHEN, WAI-TIAN TAN, and SUSIE WEE
____________________

Appeal 2012-003142
Application 10/698,196
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 and 38–76. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.1

1 Our decision will refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
June 1, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed November 22, 2011), and
the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed September 23, 2011).
Appeal 2012-003142
Application 10/698,196

2
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a method for managing a
streaming media service (Spec. 3, ll. 2–3).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A computer implemented method for managing a
streaming media service, said method comprising:
receiving a request for a streaming media service from a
client at a computer processor, said streaming media service
comprising a media service component;
selecting, performed by said computer processor, a
service location manager to which to provide said request from
a plurality of service location managers;
selecting, performed by said computer processor, a
service provider, to which to assign said media service
component, from a plurality of service providers of a network,
wherein said selecting said service provider is performed by
said service location manager;
informing, performed by said computer processor, said
service provider of said assignment to perform said media
service component, causing said service provider to prepare to
perform said streaming media service on streaming media; and
providing, performed by said computer processor,
information to said client, wherein said information is for
locating and contacting said service provider to receive said
streaming media from said service provider without utilizing
said service location manager.

THE REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review:
Claims 1 and 38–76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lumelsky (US 6,529,950 B1, iss. Mar. 4, 2003) and Pitkin
(US 5,341,477, iss. Aug. 23, 1994).

Appeal 2012-003142
Application 10/698,196

3
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 38–55
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Lumelsky teaches
away from “providing . . . information to said client, wherein said
information is for locating and contacting said service provider to receive
said streaming media from said service provider without utilizing said
service location manager,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 12–13). Instead,
we agree with, and adopt the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ argument
as set forth at pages 16 and 17 of the Answer.
The thrust of Appellants’ argument is that because both Lumelsky’s
service mapper and its negotiator are used in communicating information to
Lumelsky’s client application regarding the media servers that can satisfy
the client request, Lumelsky teaches away from providing information to the
client “without utilizing said service location manager [i.e., Lumelsky’s
service mapper],” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 12–13). In fact, not only
does Lumelsky not teach away from “providing . . . information to said
client, wherein said information is for locating and contacting said service
provider to receive said streaming media . . . without utilizing said service
location manager,” as recited in the claim, Lumelsky actually teaches this
limitation.2
Claim 1 recites “providing . . . information to said client,” and further
recites that the information is specifically “for locating and contacting said

2 A teaching away occurs when a reference discourages one skilled in the
art from following the claimed path, or when the reference would lead one
skilled in the art in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the
applicant. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Clearly,
Lumelsky cannot be found to teach away from a limitation when Lumelsky
teaches that very limitation.
Appeal 2012-003142
Application 10/698,196

4
service provider to receive said streaming media from said service provider
without utilizing said service location manager.” There is nothing in the
claim language that precludes the use of the service location manager in
providing information to the client regarding potential service providers.
Instead, the claim only requires that the information provided to the client
allows the client to locate and contact the service provider to receive the
streaming media “without utilizing said service location manager” — which
Lumelsky discloses (see Ans. 16–17).3
We also are not persuaded error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants’ further argument that Pitkin teaches away from “selecting . . . a
service provider, to which to assign said media service component” (App.
Br. 14–15). The Examiner relies on Lumelsky, not Pitkin, as disclosing this
feature (Ans. 5).
Because Appellants have not demonstrated error on the part of the
Examiner, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 38–55, which
are not argued separately.

3 Lumelsky teaches a resource management framework (RMF) system for
discovering, negotiating, and controlling media session between media
servers and end users (Lumelsky, Abstract, col. 5, ll. 4–28). The RMF
system includes a Negotiator that receives client requests for media services,
and selects an appropriate Service Mapper to locate media servers to service
the request. The Service Mapper returns a set of possible mappings of
servers that can offer the requested services to the Negotiator, and the
Negotiator provides this information to the requesting client to select or
accept a media server to provide the requested media. Once the selection is
made by the client, the media server is contacted to preview or start the
media stream without utilizing the Service Mapper, i.e., the service location
manager (see, e.g., Lumelsky, col. 5, l. 62 – col. 6, l. 27; col. 11, ll. 20–30;
and Fig. 3).
Appeal 2012-003142
Application 10/698,196

5
Independent claim 56 and dependent claims 57–76
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Lumelsky teaches
away from “said service location manager . . . for providing said service
provider with information to transfer communication from said portal
[providing a first point of contact for said client device] to said service
provider for providing said streaming input content to said client device
from said service provider,” as recited in claim 56 (App. Br. 13–14).
Instead, we agree with the Examiner that Lumelsky teaches this feature
(Ans. 19).
In this regard, we note that Lumelsky discloses that the request for
service contains a service identifier along with request criteria for locating
one or more services that match the application’s request (see Lumelsky,
col. 3, ll. 42–48; col. 4, ll. 23–30), and teaches that the media server (i.e., the
content provider) uses this information from the Service Mapper (i.e., the
service location manager) to provide the requested content (see id. at col. 10,
ll. 17–48).
We also are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants’ argument that Pitkin teaches away from “said service location
manager . . . for selecting a service provider to perform said service from
said plurality of service providers and informing said service provider that it
is assigned to perform said service,” as recited in claim 56 (App. Br. 15–16).
The Examiner relies on Lumelsky, not Pitkin, as disclosing this feature
(Ans. 10).
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 57–76, which are not argued separately.
Appeal 2012-003142
Application 10/698,196

6
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 38–76 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are 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

hh