Ex Parte Mickle et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

11320905 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111320,905 12/28/2005 Jacklyn A. Mickle
36192 7590 08/30/2016
AT&T Legal Department - CC
Attn: Patent Docketing
Room 2A-207
One AT&T Way
Bedminster, NJ 07921
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.
050240 (BLL0363US) 2609
EXAMINER
THOMAS, JASON M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2423
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2016 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 JACKLYN A. MICKLE, MICHAEL W. SMITH,
and JAMES CHIL TON1
Appeal2013-010368
Application 11/320,905
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN,
and SCOTT B. HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision2 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claim 1, which is the only pending claim. 3 Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is AT&T Intellectual
Property I, L.P. Br. 3.
2 Our decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed August 14, 2012
("Final Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed February 11, 2013 ("Br."); the
Examiner's Answer mailed May 22, 2013 ("Ans."); and the Specification
filed December 28, 2005 ("Spec.").
3 Claims 2-20 are cancelled. Br. 3.
Appeal2013-010368
Application 11/320,905
REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lorenz et al. (US 2004/0244056 Al, Dec. 2, 2004)
("Lorenz"), Drake et al. (US 2002/0078441 Al, June 20, 2002) ("Drake"),
Braun (US 2003/0226059 Al, Dec. 4, 2003), Starbuck et al. (US
2007 /0088827 Al, Apr. 19, 2007) ("Starbuck"), Sadja (US 2005/0183130
Al, Aug. 18, 2005), Hwang (US 2003/0204562 Al, Oct. 30, 2003), Stanek
et al. (US 2007/0050836 Al, Mar. 1, 2007) ("Stanek"), Krinsky et al. (US
2001/0040918 Al, Nov. 15, 2001) ("Krinsky"), and English (US 7,594,176
B 1, Sept. 22, 2009). Final Act. 3.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
According to the Specification, "[ t ]he present disclosure relates
generally to internet protocol television (IPTV), and more particularly, to
methods, systems, and computer program products for providing IPTV
support." Spec. i-f 1. Independent claim 1 is directed to a method. Br. 11-
12. Claim 1 recites:
1. A method of providing contextual support services to customer
premise equipment, the customer premise equipment coupled to an
internet protocol television network, the method comprising:
operating a network element as a support terminal server, the
network element being part of a communications network;
receiving customer premise equipment status information
indicating the status of the customer premise equipment, the customer
premise equipment being a set top box providing internet protocol
television services and executing a diagnostic applications program
interface to transmit the customer premise equipment status
information to the network element periodically at predetermined
intervals, wherein the customer premise equipment status information
includes a channel to which the customer premise equipment is set,
2
Appeal2013-010368
Application 11/320,905
customer premise equipment operating system information and an
internet protocol television feature being accessed by the customer
premise equipment, the internet protocol television feature including a
program guide, wherein the customer premise equipment operates a
thin client application for interfacing with the network element, the
thin client application being remote desktop protocol;
at a diagnostic system separate from the network element,
executing a resolution application analysis routine on the customer
premise equipment status information to detect a trend indicative of an
issue in the customer premise equipment, the trend indicative of the
issue identifying a memory of the customer premise equipment being
almost completely full, the diagnostic system testing provisioning of
the customer premise equipment based on a bill plan and testing that
throughput rates for video packets upstream and downstream of the
customer premise equipment are within threshold limits;
receiving a request from the customer premise equipment for
contextual support;
accessing a contextual support server separate from the network
element and the diagnostic system, the contextual support server
coupled to the communications network, the contextual support server
accessing contextual support information in response to the customer
premise equipment status information, wherein the customer premise
equipment status information indicates that the customer premise
equipment is accessing video on demand, the contextual support
information being related to video on demand;
providing the contextual support infonnation to the customer
premise equipment;
wherein the contextual support server executes a contextual
support application for accessing contextual support information in
response to the customer premise equipment status information, the
contextual support server pushes contextual support information to the
customer premise equipment;
wherein the network element correlates the customer premise
equipment status information to a hyperlink in response to the
customer premise equipment status information, the network element
provides the hyperlink to the customer premise equipment, the
3
Appeal2013-010368
Application 11/320,905
customer premise equipment accesses the contextual support server
through the hyperlink and pulls contextual support information from
the contextual support server.
Br. 11-12.
ANALYSIS
\Ve have reviewed the Examiner's rejection of claim l in light of
Appe11ants' arguments that the Examiner effed. Vv e are not persuaded that
Appellants identify reversible error. Upon consideration of Appellants'
arguments, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is unpatentable over the
cited combination of references. \Ve adopt as our ovvn the findings and
reasons set forth in the rejection from which this appeal is taken and in the
Examiner's A.nswer. \Ve provide the following explanation to highlight and
address specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis.
Appellants argue, "[t]his combination of Lorenz, Braun, Stanek and
Starbuck does not employ the four, separate devices in claim 1, namely, the
network element, customer premise equipment, diagnostic system and
contextual support server, and their unique interactions." Br. 8. This
argument fails to squarely address the rejection of claim 1 made in the Final
Office Action in which the Examiner relied upon and provided findings,
reasoning, and conclusions based on 5 additional prior art references which
the Appellants fail to acknowledge, discuss, or challenge in the Appeal
Brief. Br. 3-8; Final Act. 3-12. See, also, Ans. 17-18. The findings of the
Examiner are detailed and well-supported by the cited art and include
teachings relating to the four devices recited in claim 1 and their claimed
interactions. Ans. 16-19; Final Act. 3-12. We are not persuaded of error by
this argument.
4
Appeal2013-010368
Application 11/320,905
Appellants argue Starbuck fails to teach or suggest, "transmit[ting]
the customer premise equipment status information to the network element
periodically at predetermined intervals," as recited in claim 1. Br. 8-9
(emphasis added). This argument is misdirected. As stated in the
Examiner's Answer:
However, the Examiner relies upon the combined
teachings of the prior art of record, more specifically both
Drake and Braun teach "transmit[ ting] the customer premise
equipment status information to a network element periodically
at predetermined intervals" (See Drake e.g. [0028] where in
addition to real time reporting, Drake teaches where "status
information" is collected over a "brief period" and then
transmitting it together in a batch" [sic] which reads on
transmitting "status information ... periodically at
predetermined intervals" ; see also Braun [0022] where user
terminal "status information" is collected and "periodically"
transmitted to a server.)
Ans. 20-21(emphasis added). See, also, Final Act. 4--5. The detailed and
well-supported findings of the Examiner as to this disputed limitation are not
addressed or challenged by the Appellants. This argument is not persuasive
of error.
Appellants argue Stanek fails to teach or suggest, "testing
provisioning of the customer premise equipment based on a bill plan," as
recited in claim 1. Br. 9. The Examiner responds:
Stanek teaches a system and method for evaluating the
operation status of a STB [set top box] in a cable network and
doing so remotely (See e.g. [Abstract]). The mere fact that
Stanek performs the analysis based upon "acquir[ing]
information relating to the subscriber associated with the STB
MAC address, the services authorized (or the STB, etc." suggest
to the Examiner that the provisioning process is inherently
based upon the subscription of the subscriber (i.e. which reads
5
Appeal2013-010368
Application 11/320,905
on a "bill plan"). ivforeover, Stanek discloses that figure 2
considers information relating to a subscriber's "bill plan"
while evaluating the STB using the STB checker service to
evaluate items such as the subscriber's "digital services" (i.e.
Service A, Service B, etc.), "credit limit," "[pay-per-view]
limit," "service group," etc. Therefore it is the Examiner's
position that Stanek determines that a "customer is currently
paying for video-on-demand services" or other services as a
part of provisioning and/or troubleshooting the STB.
Ans. 22. See, also, Final Act. 8. The Examiner's findings are well-
supported by Stanek. We are not persuaded of error by this argument.
DECISION
The rejection of claim 1under35 U.S.C. §103(a) 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6