Ex Parte Jannink et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 6, 2013

11603539 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2013)

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.
11/603,539 11/22/2006 Jan F. Jannink 257.56-US-01 1490
105454 7590 11/07/2013
Gates & Cooper LLP - Specific Media/Myspace
6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1050
Los Angeles, CA 90045
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, MINH CHAU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2459
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/07/2013 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 JAN F. JANNINK, TIMOTHY E. DEGRAW, and
JASSON A. SCHROCK
____________________

Appeal 2011-004650
Application 11/603,539
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-004650
Application 11/603,539

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to an interactive
multicast media service. Specifically, the invention relates to uploading user
content related to a multicast media file currently being viewed by a group
of users. Abstract.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for supporting an online multicast media
service that is implemented using a media server that multicasts
media files to users at user computing equipment over a
communications network, comprising:
maintaining at least one playlist of media files at the
media server;
multicasting each media file in the playlist to multiple
users in a viewer group simultaneously over the
communications network, wherein each user has a respective
media player that is implemented on the user computing
equipment of that user and wherein each respective media
player plays the media file that is being multicasted in
synchronization;
displaying the playlist on the user computing equipment
of each of the users in the viewer group while the media file is
being multicasted to the users in the viewer group; and
at the media server, receiving user-uploaded content from
the user computing equipment of at least some of the users in
Appeal 2011-004650
Application 11/603,539

3
the viewer group, wherein the user-uploaded content is
associated with the playlist and with the media file that is being
multicasted and is received at the media server in real time as
the media file is being multicasted.

References
Gupte
Varghese
US 2006/0282864 A1
US 2007/0282675 A1
Dec. 14, 2006
Dec. 6, 2007

Rejections
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gupte and Varghese. Ans. 3-15.

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Gupte does not teach or suggest “receiving user-
uploaded content from users in real time as a media file is being multicasted
to the users, as required by claim 1.” App. Br. 7. Appellants acknowledge
that Gupte teaches both multicasting streaming video and user-uploaded
content that may be distributed over the network. Id. However, Appellants
assert that there is no teaching or suggestion in Gupte of real-time (as the
media file is sent via multicast) user-uploaded content that is associated with
the media file. Id. Appellants further argue the Examiner’s findings with
respect to paragraph 19 of Gupte are not related to the disputed limitation
because paragraph 19 of Gupte merely discloses viewing media in real time
while downloading the media, whereas the claims require the media server
to receive user-uploaded content associated with the media file while the
media file is sent via multicast. Id.
Appeal 2011-004650
Application 11/603,539

4
Issue1
Does Gupte teach or suggest
at the media server, receiving user-uploaded content from
the user computing equipment of at least some of the users in
the viewer group, wherein the user-uploaded content is
associated with the playlist and with the media file that is being
multicasted and is received at the media server in real time as
the media file is being multicasted,

as recited in independent claim 1?

Analysis
The Examiner finds that Gupte teaches receiving user uploaded
content. The Examiner points to paragraph 41 of Gupte, which discusses
uploading customer-created work, and paragraph 265, which discusses a
user uploading media packages that may be downloaded by other users.
Ans. 16. The Examiner also refers to paragraphs 35 and 36 of Gupte, which
relate to users creating media content and registering it with a media server
so that other users can access the content. Id. The Examiner finds
paragraph 19 of Gupte teaches allowing a user to view media content in real
time. Id. The Examiner then concludes that a “media package is uploaded
in the real time.” Id.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings. First, we note that the
Examiner misinterprets Gupte. Gupte teaches that a user may view media
content in real time—while the user is downloading the content from the

1 While we note Appellants assert additional arguments against the
rejections of dependent claims 7 and 20, we do not reach these additional
issues as this issue is dispositive.
Appeal 2011-004650
Application 11/603,539

5
media server— “as Internet access speeds improve.” Gupte ¶ 19. Gupte
discloses a media server streaming content to a user in real time rather than a
media server receiving user uploaded content “in real time as the media file
is being multicasted,” as recited in independent claim 1. Id. We do not see
the connection the Examiner makes from the findings that users may upload
media packages and that media may be viewed in real time (i.e., as the
content is being downloaded) to the Examiner’s conclusive finding that a
media package is uploaded in real time. Moreover, we do not see a finding
by the Examiner, nor do we see a teaching in Gupte, that the user uploaded
content is uploaded “in real time as the media file is being multicasted.”
Therefore, given the findings and record before us, we are unable to sustain
the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-20, which depend therefrom and are
not argued separately.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 is
reversed.

REVERSED
ke