13968113 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2017)

Ex Parte Hasenei

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 28, 2017

13968113 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 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. 13/968,113 08/15/2013 Stephen Ignatius Hasenei 026155.00083 3386 4372 7590 05/02/2017 ARENT FOX LLP 1717 K Street, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20006-5344 EXAMINER MARANDI, JAMES R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2421 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/02/2017 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): patentdocket @ arentfox. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEPHEN IGNATIUS HASENEI Appeal 2016-005092 Application 13/968,113 Technology Center 2400 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ADAM J. PYONIN, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—12, 15—33, and 35—40, which are all of the pending claims. See App. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2016-005092 Application 13/968,113 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is directed to a “system and method for obtaining access to multimedia programming transmissions while residing in a temporary dwelling,” in which a “movie or other multimedia programming may be streamed from a content provider to [a] smart docking station in the temporary dwelling, via [a] remote server, to be viewed/listened to on [a] smart device operably connected to the smart docking station.” Abstract. Claims 1,15, and 29 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference: 1. A smart docking station device comprising: a housing that receives at least one engaged device; a coupling port in the housing that couples to the engaged device; an interface port that enables coupling of the engaged device to at least one server; and a decoding chip device configured to decode media programming content received by the smart docking station device via the at least one server in order to display the received media programming content on the at least one engaged device. References and Rejections The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Margis US 2006/0107295 A1 May 18, 2006 Steelberg US 2009/0228354 A1 Sept. 10, 2009 Iverson US 2013/0045728 A1 Feb. 21, 2013 “Pro:Idiom® System Description”, as published by www.Pdisat.com/documents/Proldiom overview.pdf, July 30, 2009 (hereinafter “Zenith”). XP8000 Smart Wi-Fi Media Player, as appeared in Xpower.biz on May 27, 2011 -Way back Machine- (hereinafter “XP8000”). 2 Appeal 2016-005092 Application 13/968,113 Claims 1—6, 10, 15—22, 24, 25, and 35—38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Margis and Zenith. Final Act. 4. Claims 7—9, 23, and 26—28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Margis, Zenith, and XP8000. Final Act. 12. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Margis, Zenith, and Iverson. Final Act. 15. Claims 12, 29—33, 39, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Margis, Zenith, Iverson and Steelberg. Final Act. 16. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments; Appellant does not persuade us the Examiner erred. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as our own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellant argues Margis does not teach or suggest the claimed “a smart docking station device comprising: a housing that receives at least one engaged device.” App. Br. 15. Particularly, Appellant contends Margis’s “unit 832 is located IN a mobile device as an interface to connect to a smart docking station” and thus “cannot receive itself.” Id. (referring to Margis Fig. 13 A); see also Reply Br. 8—9. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Appellant’s argument is inconsistent with Figure 13A of Margis, which shows a device interface station 832 (i.e., a housing that receives at least one engaged device) 3 Appeal 2016-005092 Application 13/968,113 receiving a portable media device 100 (i.e., an engaged device) for displaying media programming content.1 See Final Act. 4; see also Margis 1148 (“a device management interface 830 with a device interface docking station 832 for receiving a selected portable media device 100.”). Appellant further argues the Examiner erred in finding “the docking station 832 contains ‘a transceiver system (as detailed in Fig. 8B, 540, 1 [114]) processing media programming content received by the smart docking station via at least one server in order to display the received media programming content on the at least one engaged device 1 [149]).’” App. Br. 15 (emphasis removed), quoting Final Act. 5. Appellant contends “[t]he asserted smart docking station device [832] explicitly does not contain the transceiver system [540], as these are two completely separate systems.” Reply Br. 7. First, we note claim 1 does not recite a “transceiver system,” and Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in finding one of ordinary skill would include the decoding chip of Zenith in the docking station of Margis. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 24; Zenith Figs. 1, 2. For at least this reason, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the claim limitations to be taught or suggested by the cited references. Second, Appellant does not persuade us that Margis does not, at least, suggest integrating the various components of the smart docking station device. See, e.g., Margis 1114 (“Although shown and described as being separate systems for purposes of illustration, the computer system 550 and the media server system 520 can 1 We note Figure 13 A of Margis depicts an arrow to show the device interface station 832 receiving the portable media device 100. See also Margis Figs. 13B, 14. 4 Appeal 2016-005092 Application 13/968,113 be at least partially integrated.”). Finally, Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the claim scope: claim 1 does not require the decoding chip to be located in the housing of the smart docking station. Rather, we find the smart docking station device of claim 1 encompasses the device interface station and transceiver system of Margis (modified with Zenith’s decoding chip), located within a vehicle such as an airplane. See Margis. Fig. 8B; see also Ans. 23 (“transceiver 540 is part of the content delivery (docking station side)”). We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Margis and Zenith teaches or suggests the limitations of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and the rejections of remaining claims 2—12, 15—33, and 35—40, which are not separately argued with particularity. See App. Br. 17. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—12, 15—33, and 35—40 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 5