13297575 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2016)

Ex Parte Janning et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 13, 2016

13297575 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/297,575 11/16/2011 27820 7590 06/15/2016 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. 106 Pinedale Springs Way Cary, NC 27511 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR William J. Janning 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 7000-678C 6128 EXAMINER SAINT CYR, JEAN D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2425 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/15/2016 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): patents@wt-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITEn STATES PATENT ANn TRA.nEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WILLIAM J. JANNING, TRIP INGLE, and GREGORY T. OSTERHOUT Appeal2014-007167 Application 13/297,575 Technology Center 2400 Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, JOHN F. HORVATH, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 6-14, and 16-20, which are all pending claims. See App. Br. 9-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal2014-007167 Application 13/297,575 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' disclosure is directed to a session initiation protocol enabled set-top device. Title. Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (with emphasis added): 1. A method of controlling delivery of media content, the method comprising, at a network server: receiving at the network server a registration request from a remote subscriber device to register a subscriber for a media content delivery service; responsive to the registration request, registering the subscriber for the media content delivery service; sending a registration response to the remote subscriber device confirming registration of the subscriber for the media content delivery service; receiving a request for media channel guide information from the remote subscriber device; sending the media channel guide information to the remote subscriber device in response to the request; receiving a request for delivery of media content associated with a selected media channel; and directing media channel content associated with the selected media channel to a media channel recording device associated with the subscriber. References and Rejections Claims 1--4, 6-9, 11-14, 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tomita (US 2001/0013127 Al; Aug. 9, 2001) and Payne (US 2006/0062250 Al; Mar. 23, 2006). Final Act. 2. Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tomita, Payne, and Maggenti (US 2010/0233993 Al; Sept. 16, 2010). Final Act. 10. 2 Appeal2014-007167 Application 13/297,575 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments. We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions (see Final Act. 2-11; Advisory Act. 1-2; Ans. 11-13) as our own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, because "neither Tomita nor Payne, either alone or in combination, discloses or suggests sending a registration response to a remote subscriber device confirming registration of a subscriber for a media content delivery service" as claimed. App. Br. 6. Particularly, Appellants contend "the request disclosed in Payne is not to allow access to the various types of video, as alleged by the Patent Office. Instead, Payne explicitly discloses that the registration request is for bandwidth." Reply Br. 4. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner correctly finds Payne teaches or suggests the recited "sending a registration response to the remote subscriber device confirming registration of the subscriber," because Payne discloses "[t]he network management module replies with a registration grant message ... the wireless router 30 sends a registration grant message 1730 with the same parameters to the gateway 20 (or other device)." Payne i-f 123, see also Final Act. 4--5 (citing Payne Fig. 17). We also agree Payne teaches or suggests the registration is for a media content delivery service, as Payne discloses data transfer (i.e., "session 1740") begins after registration (see Payne Fig. 17); data transfer includes bandwidth allocation information (see Payne Fig. 18) as well as "data of various types" (Payne i-f 53) such as audio and video data (see Payne i-fi-1 65- 66). See Ans.12. 3 Appeal2014-007167 Application 13/297,575 Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Payne teaches registration for the media content delivery service, within the meaning of claim 1. 1 See Ans. 12-13 ("[t]he main purpose of sending [the] registration request was to allow registered users to access digital video, near video on-demand and video on-demand."). CONCLUSION Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 2--4, 6-9, 11-14, and 16-19 not argued separately. See App. Br. 7. Appellants argue claims 10 and 20 are allowable in view of Tomita and Payne for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, and because the additionally cited "Maggenti does not address the problems of Tomita and Payne." App. Br. 7. As we are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner's findings with respect to Tomita and Payne, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding claims 10 and 20 obvious in view of Tomita, Payne, and Maggenti. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 20. 1 Additionally, we note the Examiner relies on Tomita for teaching the delivery of media content (see Final Act. 3--4), and finds one of ordinary skill would modify Tomita's media content delivery with Payne's teaching of registrations (see Final Act. 5). Appellants do not persuade us the Examiner erred in finding the combination of references teaches the limitations of claim 1. 4 Appeal2014-007167 Application 13/297,575 DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-14, and 16-20 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5