11752070 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2016)

Ex Parte Melpignano

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 22, 2016

11752070 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111752,070 0512212007 117574 7590 08/24/2016 ADDMG - ST (foreign-originated only) 255 S Orange Avenue, Suite 1401 Orlando, FL 32801 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Diego Melpignano 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. 05-AG-298US01 (5300024) 3118 EXAMINER YUN, CARINA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2194 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/24/2016 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): creganoa@addmg.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DIEGO MELPIGNANO Appeal2015-000080 Application 11/752,070 Technology Center 2100 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-3, 5-16, 18-24, 26-39, and 41, all remaining claims of the application. 1 Claims 4, 17, 25, and 40 are cancelled. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. 1 In this Opinion, we refer to the original Specification ("Spec.," filed May 22, 2007 (amendments filed January 31, 2011 and June 22, 2011 do not impact our Decision)); the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed December 30, 2013); Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed May 27, 2014); the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 24, 2014); and Appellant's Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed September 24, 2014). Appeal2015-000080 Application 11/752,070 THE INVENTION Appellant's invention is directed to "distributed processing of multimedia contents in communication networks, in particular home networks, there being connected on said communication networks devices comprising components suitable for processing multimedia contents." Spec. 1: 16-20. More specifically, the invention relates to "multimedia components that support a UPnP (Universal Plug-and-Play) protocol." Id. at 1:22-23. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter with the disputed recitation in italics. 1. A system for distributed processing of multimedia contents, comprising: a plurality of devices, equipped with central processing units (CPU), associated with a communication network, wherein each of the CPU-equipped devices comprises one or more components which are able to process the multimedia contents according to requirements of one or more applications forwarded through at least one from among the one or more CPU-equipped devices, wherein each of said components comprises a MultiMedia Framework designed for managing processing of multimedia contents, wherein the MultiMedia Framework comprises an application- programming interface, wherein the one or more CPU-equipped devices further comprises one or more agent modules which can operate according to a service-discovery protocol between the agent modules for publishing on said communication network, wherein each of the one or more CPU-equipped devices publishes a graph of its components, which appear published at a Control Point for use by the MultiMedia Framework, wherein each application-programming interface is remotely accessible by the one or more CPU-equipped devices in a 2 Appeal2015-000080 Application 11/752,070 manner as if each application-programming interface is supported locally in the CPU-equipped device, such that a high computational complexity function can be performed by the plurality of CPU-equipped devices to render the components of the applications available to build complex distributed applications, combining components coming from different devices, under the control of any Control Point device in the context of a UPnP (Universal Plug-And- Play) protocol. THE REJECTIONS Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16, 19, 22-24, 26-31, 33-36, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Mandato (US 2002/0116545 Al; Aug. 22, 2002), Debique (US 2004/0004631 Al; Jan. 8, 2004); Spinelli (US 2006/0123104 Al; June 8, 2006), and Schneider (G. Schneider et al., Adhoc Personal Ubiquitous Multimedia Services Via UPnP, Proc. IEEE Int'l Conference on Multimedia and Expo (Aug. 2001)). Final Act. 3-19. Claims 18, 20, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mandato, Debique, Spinelli, Schneider, and Naqvi (US 2006/0294244 Al; Dec. 28, 2006). Final Act. 19-20. Claims 11 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mandato, Debique, Spinelli, Schneider, and AvdelAziz (US 7,486,695B1; Feb. 3, 2009). Final Act. 20-21. Claims 21and38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mandato, Debique, Spinelli, Schneider, and Stankoulov (US 7,043,357 Bl; May 9, 2006). Final Act. 22. Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mandato, Debique, Naqvi, and Schneider. Final Act. 23-25. 3 Appeal2015-000080 Application 11/752,070 ANALYSIS Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in this Decision. Arguments that Appellant did not make in the Brief are waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We have reviewed, but are not persuaded by, Appellant's contentions of Examiner error (App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 1--4). We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-25) and as set forth by the Examiner in the Answer (Ans. 20-21 ). However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Rejection of Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16, 19, 22-24, 26--31, 33-36, and 41 In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Schneider for teaching the disputed recitation and articulates a reason for the proposed combination. Final Act. 6-7. Specifically, Schneider discloses an ad-hoc multimedia distributed processing architecture in which a control point manages the multimedia distributed processing among a plurality of composite devices managed by a control point. Id. at 6 (citing portions of Schneider, pp. 1-3); see also, Ans. 21. Appellant argues: The combination of Mandato, Debique, and Spinelli does not provide the additional functionality of providing complex distributed applications because, as admitted by the Examiner, the combination of the cited references does not provide that level of functionality, and Schneider does not actually teach the additional functionality i.e., the claimed limitation regarding complex distributed applications. It has not been made clear by the Examiner where Schneider teaches the complex distributed 4 Appeal2015-000080 Application 11/752,070 applications. Schneider is deemed to teach only that rich multimedia content can be accessed on a small screen device. App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 1--4 (presenting essentially the same arguments as in the Appeal Brief). We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Merely reciting language of the claims and asserting the cited prior art reference does not teach or suggest the claim limitation is insufficient. See 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011 ). Still further, it is well settled that mere attorney's arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Examiner has clearly identified a teaching in Schneider that teaches or at least suggests the disputed recitation and Appellant's argument fails to identify an error in that finding but, instead, merely conclusively asserts the disputed recitation is not taught by Schneider. Furthermore, although this Decision does not rely on it, we observe the disputed recitation appears to merely recite a goal or benefit (i.e., an intended use or purpose) that may, or may not, be achieved by the recited structural elements of claim 1. The disputed recitation does not appear to in any way define the claimed structure. In view of the above discussion, we sustain the Examiner's rejection ofclaim 1 and claims 2, 3, 5-10, 12-16, 19, 22-24, 26-31, 33-36, and41 not argued separately. 5 Appeal2015-000080 Application 11/752,070 Rejections of Claims 11, 18, 20, 21, 32, and 37-39 Appellant does not separately argue these rejections with particularity (App. Br. 7) and, thus, for the same reasons as the claims from which they depend, we sustain these rejections. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-16, 18-24, 26-39, and 41 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 6