Ex Parte Herlein et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 1, 2017

12450564 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 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.
12/450,564 09/30/2009 Gregroy Charles Herlein PU070071 5873
24498 7590 02/03/2017
Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations
THOMSON Licensing LLC
4 Research Way
3rd Floor
Princeton, NJ 08543
EXAMINER
STRANGE, AARON N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2448
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/03/2017 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):
uspto@technicolor.com
pat. verlangieri @ technicolor.com
russell. smith @ technicolor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREGROY CHARLES HERLEIN,
CHRISTOPHER LEWIS YUNKER, and KELLY ANN HOINACKI
Appeal 2016-004833
Application 12/450,5641
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—9 and 12—21, which are all of the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to “enabling each device of a set of devices to
receive a broadcast command, determine if the command applies to the
device, and take action if the command applies to the device.” Abstract.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Thomson
Licensing/Technicolor. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-004833
Application 12/450,564
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A method for providing device group control of network
devices, comprising:
communicating control information to at least one
recipient device comprising a group of recipient devices; and
including with the control information a unique identifier
for said group of recipient devices for which the control
information is intended;
wherein a recipient device of said group of recipient
devices examines received control information for the unique
identifier to determine if the communication is intended for the
recipient device, the control information enabling the
configuration of at least one physical attribute of said at least
one recipient device.
Rejections
Claims 1—8, 12—14, and 17—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Hatalkar (US 2002/0129095 Al; Sept. 12, 2002).
Final Act. 3.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Hatalkar and Saint-Hillaire et al. (US 2007/0005783 Al; Jan.
4,2007). Final Act. 7.
Claims 15, 16, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Hatalkar and Babbar et al. (US 7,688,792
B2; Mar. 30, 2010). Final Act. 5.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Hatalkar discloses “the control
information enabling the configuration of at least one physical attribute of
said at least one recipient device,” as recited in claim 1?
2
Appeal 2016-004833
Application 12/450,564
ANALYSIS
Anticipation: Claims 1—8, 12—14, and 17—19
Claim 1 recites “the control information enabling the configuration of
at least one physical attribute of said at least one recipient device.”
The Examiner relies on Hatalkar for disclosing this limitation. Ans.
3—5. Appellants contend Hatalkar discloses a “passive system” in which
information is “transmitted at scheduled intervals” whereas “Appellant’s
invention is an active system in which control information is communicated
to a recipient to actively configure the recipient’s physical parameters to, for
example, change a physical attribute such as volume, a channel to which it is
tuned, or other similar configuration parameters.” Br. 10—11.
However, Appellants have not persuaded us that any language of
claim 1 precludes control information from being sent “at scheduled
intervals.” Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants’
disclosed features of adjusting the volume, changing the channel, and
toggling power “are merely examples and not claim limitations [of claim 1],
Claim 9 specifically recites these examples as claim limitations, so the
‘physical attribute’ of claim 1 is necessarily broader in scope as claim 9 is
presumed to further limit claim 1.” Ans. 4; Phillips v. AWH Corp, 415 F.3d
1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (enbanc) (Under the doctrine of claim
differentiation, “the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular
limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not
present in the independent claim.”). Contrary to Appellants’ assertion, we
note that claim 9 does not even expressly identity volume, channel, or power
as “physical attributes.” We also note the Specification does not use the
term “physical attribute,” and the claim merely requires the control
3
Appeal 2016-004833
Application 12/450,564
information enable the configuration of a physical attribute, which is broader
than direct change of a physical attribute.
Here, the Examiner finds Hatalkar discloses messages which “contain
‘control information’ such as system management messages containing
authorization information and maintenance software modules.” Ans. 3
(citing Hatalkar 19). The Examiner further finds the control information of
these messages “enables configuration of at least one physical attribute of
the recipient device such as updating a physical memory to reflect
subscription changes ... or configuring a client device with received
software modules.” Ans. 3^4 (citing Hatalkar || 40, 9). Appellants have
not sufficiently addressed these findings of the Examiner to persuade us of
error given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation. For
example, Appellants fail to provide sufficient evidence or reasoning
rebutting that Hatalkar’s subscription authorization information is control
information that enables the display of a newly subscribed premium channel.
See Hatalkar 140.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and
claims 2—8, 10-14, and 17—19, which Appellants argue are patentable for
similar reasons. See Br. 12; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Obviousness: Claim 9
Appellants contend dependent claim 9 is allowable “at least because
of its dependency on allowable, independent claim 1” and because Saint-
Hillaire does not cure the deficiencies set forth for claim 1. Br. 15.
However, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as anticipated for
the reasons above, and “[i]t is well settled that anticipation is the epitome of
4
Appeal 2016-004833
Application 12/450,564
obviousness.” In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
(quotation omitted).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 as
obvious.
Obviousness: Claims 15, 16, 20, and 21
Similar to claim 9, Appellants contend dependent claims 15, 16, 20,
and 21 are allowable for the same reasons as independent claim 1 and
because Babbar does not cure the deficiencies set forth for claim 1. Br. 13—
14. However, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as anticipated
for the reasons above.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15, 16, 20,
and 21.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1—9 and 12—21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5