11714973 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2014)

Ex Parte Lee

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 11, 2014

11714973 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2014)

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. 11/714,973 03/07/2007 Sean S. Lee PD-206090 4846 20991 7590 07/14/2014 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION CA / LA1 / A109 2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245 EXAMINER CHRISTENSEN, SCOTT B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2444 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/14/2014 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 SEAN S. LEE ____________ Appeal 2012-002504 Application 11/714,973 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention provides content to multiple terminals within a vehicle that allows for independently controlling the content stream. See generally Spec. ¶ 0002. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method comprising: providing a first content stream to a first terminal having content therein through a network; Appeal 2012-002504 Application 11/714,973 2 displaying the content at the first terminal; during playback, selecting a selection at the first terminal corresponding to a modified playback function; at the first terminal, generating a modified playback command that includes a first terminal identifier and the modified playback function; communicating the modified playback command to a server through the network; modifying the first content stream to the first terminal from the server through the network in response to the modified playback command to form a modified content stream; communicating the modified content stream to the first terminal. THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1–40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over D’Annunzio (US 2003/0069990 A1; Apr. 10, 2003) and Baker (US 5,583,561; Dec. 10, 1996). Ans. 4–17.1 CONTENTIONS The Examiner finds that D’Annunzio provides a first content stream to a first terminal through a network, and the content is displayed at that terminal. Ans. 4–5. The Examiner, however, acknowledges that D’Annunzio does not (1) generate a modified playback command including a terminal identifier; (2) communicate this command to a server through the network; and (3) modify the first content stream to the first terminal responsive to the modified playback command to form a modified content 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed June 20, 2011 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed September 16, 2011 (“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed November 16, 2011 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2012-002504 Application 11/714,973 3 stream communicated to the first terminal. Ans. 5. The Examiner, however, cites Baker as teaching these features in concluding that the claim would have been obvious, particularly in light of D’Annunzio’s Internet Protocol (IP) network whose packets are said to include a terminal identifier. Ans. 4– 7, 17–21. Appellant argues that the cited prior art lacks a terminal identifier and, therefore, cannot generate a modified playback command including that identifier. App. Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 2–3. According to Appellant, Baker does not communicate a modified playback command to a server through a network, but rather inputs requests to a video server via a telephone, associated answering equipment, or a side channel—none of which are said to be networks. App. Br. 8–9; Reply Br. 3–4. Appellant adds that while Baker’s server controls an original video data stream’s timing responsive to viewer requests, Baker does not form a separate modified content stream. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4–5. ISSUE Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that D’Annunzio and Baker collectively would have taught or suggested (1) generating, at the first terminal, a modified playback command including a terminal identifier and a modified playback function; (2) communicating the modified playback command to a server through the network; and (3) modifying the first content stream to the first terminal from the server responsive to the modified playback command to form a modified content stream that is communicated to the first terminal? Appeal 2012-002504 Application 11/714,973 4 ANALYSIS We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1. D’Annunzio’s Internet Protocol (IP)-based network 10 is hosted on a mobile platform (e.g., an aircraft, ship, train, etc.) and includes a media server 16 storing streaming audio and video content that passengers may wish to view or listen to. D’Annunzio, Abstract; ¶¶ 0009, 0018; Fig. 1. Because D’Annunzio’s network is based on IP, ordinarily skilled artisans would understand that packets sent over that network would include a terminal identifier in the header to comport with that protocol similar to the IP packet’s source (terminal) identifier 516 in Appellant’s Figure 7 as the Examiner indicates. Ans. 7, 17–18 (citing Spec. ¶ 0061). Given this fundamental aspect of packet-based communication in IP networks, we see no error in the Examiner’s combining Baker’s teachings with D’Annunzio to at least suggest the claimed invention. To be sure, viewers in Baker input requests to start, stop, pause, or rewind their particular video data streams via a telephone 14, associated answering equipment 16, or a side channel. Baker, col. 7, ll. 36–45 (discussing various alternatives for communicating viewer requests to Video Server 12 including computers and special-purpose hardware); col. 12, ll. 7–27; Fig. 1. But leaving aside the fact that Baker’s side-channel alternative at least suggests that such a channel is associated with distribution network 20, Baker’s telephones are nonetheless part of a network using Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) technology that is likewise part of the distribution network. See Baker, col. 8, ll. 1–3. Accord Ans. 19–20 (citing Baker, col. 8, ll. 1–2 and claim 10). So even if viewers in Baker were limited to sending requests via ISDN telephones (which they are not), the requests would be Appeal 2012-002504 Application 11/714,973 5 still be sent to the server via a digital distribution network. Appellant’s arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 4) are therefore unavailing. Given these teachings, ordinarily skilled artisans would understand that sending requests or “modified playback commands” such as those in Baker from terminals to the media server in D’Annunzio’s IP digital network would predictably yield terminal identifiers associated with those requests comporting with the standard IP packet format. Nor do we find error in the Examiner’s position that Baker effectively modifies the first content stream responsive to the modified playback command to form a modified content stream, at least with respect to its delivery. See Ans. 20 (“Baker does teach the modification of the delivery of the data stream based on the selected function, such as rewinding and pausing.”) (emphasis added). Notably, Appellant admits that Baker modifies a data stream. See App. Br. 5 (agreeing with the Examiner’s conclusion that Baker teaches modifying a data stream). Even assuming, without deciding, that this modification only controls the timing of the original video stream in Baker as Appellant contends (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4–5), nothing in the claim precludes forming such a modified content stream, at least with respect to its delivery to the viewer (paused, rewound, etc.). Appellant’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 1, and claims 2–40 not argued separately with particularity.2 2 Although Appellant nominally argues independent claims 18, 27, and 30 separately (App. Br. 10–12; Reply Br. 6), Appellant reiterates arguments Appeal 2012-002504 Application 11/714,973 6 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–40 under § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–40 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED kme similar to those made for claim 1 that we find unpersuasive for the reasons previously discussed. Notably, claims 27 and 30 do not recite modifying a content stream to form a modified content stream as recited in the other independent claims. Nevertheless, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the reasons previously discussed.