Ex Parte NAHATA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2016

13196650 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/196,650 08/02/2011
25537 7590 03/31/2016
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hans Raj NAHATA
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.
20110150 4248
EXAMINER
HOSSAIN, FARZANA E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2016 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@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANS RAJ NAHATA and SANJA Y MISHRA
Appeal2014-004660
Application 13/196,650
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal2014-004660
Application 13/196,650
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "billing system for a video
provisioning system" (Title).
Claims 1, 11, and 18 are independent. Independent claim 1,
reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a video provisioning system, a request to
purchase a video asset from a user device;
determining, by the video provisioning system, an
account type associated with the user device from a plurality of
different account types;
billing, by the video provisioning system, the purchase to
a bundled services account, wherein the bundled services
account is associated with one or more of a television service, a
data connection service, or a telephone service available over a
same connection, in response to determining that the account
type corresponds to the bundled services account;
billing, by the video provisioning system, the purchase to
a voice services account, wherein the voice services account
corresponds to a mobile telephone seP1ice or a legacy landline
telephone service, in response to determining that the account
type corresponds to the voice services account; and
processing, by the video provisioning system, a payment
for the purchase via an online payment service, in response to
determining that the user device is not associated with a
bundled services account or a voice services account.
App. Br. 32 (Claims App'x) (disputed limitations in italics).
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 9--12, and 14--22 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Chow (US 2008/0235104 Al, pub. Sep.
25, 2008) (Final Act. 3-9).
2
Appeal2014-004660
Application 13/196,650
The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious based upon the teachings of Chow (Final Act. 9--10).
The Examiner rejected claims 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious based upon the teachings of Chow and Schlacht (US 2011/0214149
Al, pub. Sep. 1, 2011) (Final Act. 10-12).
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4, 9-12, and 14-22 under 35 USC §102(b)
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Chow teaches the
disputed limitation determining an account type associated with a user from
a plurality of different account types, as recited in all the independent claims
(App. Br. 12). Particularly, Appellants argue Chow discloses a single
account associated with a unified subscriber bill and not a plurality of
different types of accounts (id.). Thus, Chow also does not disclose billing
to a bundled services account or a video services account (App. Br. 13)
because there is only a single account type-a unified customer bill (App.
Br. 14).
The Examiner finds Chow's paragraphs 27 and 49 disclose the
disputed limitation (Final Act. 4; Ans. 3--4). Particularly, although Chow
does not explicitly recite "bundled services," Chow discloses the equivalent
("combination of two or more communications services" (Chow paragraph
27)). Further, Chow's paragraph 49 states a "unified bill may also include
charges related to communication services, such as ... wireless telephone
communication service, Internet service, television service, other
communication services, or any combination thereof' (see Ans. 4).
Similarly, Appellants' Specification (i-f 20) describes the bundled services
3
Appeal2014-004660
Application 13/196,650
account as including a television service, telephone service, or internet
service. Thus, Chow discloses determining the type of account based on the
preparation of the bill, including determining the type of service on the
account and billing according to the type of account, as claimed (Ans. 4--5).
As the Examiner finds Appellants' independent claim limitations read
on Chow, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 11, and 18. We
also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 17, 19, 21, and 22, which
Appellants do not separately argue (see App. Br. 17).
With respect to claims 2 and 12, Appellants contend Chow does not
teach the requirement that the user device corresponds to a set top box (App.
Br. 17-19). The Examiner, however, correctly finds Chow discloses a set
top box corresponding to the user device (Final Act. 5; Ans. 6-7
(collectively citing Chow i-fi-f 14, 17, 18, and 48--42)). We therefore sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 2 and 12.
With respect to claims 4 and 14, Appellants contend Chow does "not
disclose or suggest receiving an account type from a profile server in
response to requesting information about a video provisioning system profile
associated with a user device" (App. Br. 19) (emphasis added). The
Examiner finds, Chow's paragraphs 18, 25, 27, 29, and 50 disclose this
limitation (Ans. 8; Final Act. 5). However, as Appellants point out, the
Examiner has not pointed out what elements of these various paragraphs
correspond to the claim limitations. We additionally note the cited
paragraphs also refer to different embodiments. Because the Examiner has
not made a prima facie case of anticipation, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 4 and 14 as anticipated by Chow.
4
Appeal2014-004660
Application 13/196,650
With respect to claims 9 and 15, Appellants contend Chow does not
disclose "instructing the billing system to add the computed charges to a
next bill associated with the bundled services account, when the bundled
services account has enough credit for the purchase of the video asset"
(App. Br. 20-21) (emphasis added).
The Examiner correctly finds Chow discloses the first part of the
claim limitation (instructing the billing system to add computed charges)
(Ans. 9--10; Final Act. 5-6), however, the Examiner has not shown where
Chow discloses the charges are added to a next bill when the bundled
services account has enough credit for the purchase. Thus, although we
deem claims 9 and 15 would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled
artisan, we are constrained by the record before us, and do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 9 and 15 as anticipated by Chow, as the
Examiner has not made a prima facie case of anticipation.
Claims 10 and 16 have the same limitations as claims 9 and 15,
respectively, except they recite "voice services account" in lieu of "bundled
services account." The Examiner cites the same paragraphs in Chow as for
claims 9 and 15 (Ans. 10-11; Final Act. 6). Thus, for the same reasons as
set forth above with respect to claims 9 and 15, we are constrained by the
record before us and do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 10
and 16 as anticipated by Chow.
With respect to claim 20, Appellants contend Chow does not disclose
"a profile server configured to generate a video provisioning system profile
for the user device based on at least one of the bundled services account or
the voice services account, associated with the user device" (App. Br. 25,
citing Chow i-fi-125, 27, 29, 30, and 50)).
5
Appeal2014-004660
Application 13/196,650
We are persuaded by the Examiner's Answer that Chow discloses this
limitation (Ans. 12-13, additionally finding relevant disclosure in Chow i-fi-1
18, 48, 49, and 51)). Appellants do not address these additional findings in
the Reply. Further, Appellants erroneously address an obviousness rejection
made with respect to claim 3, as directed to claim 20 (Reply Br. 10-11 ).
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 20 as anticipated by
Chow.
Rejection of Claims 3, 5---8, and 13 under 35 USC §103
Appellants contend dependent claims 3 and 13 are allowable solely
due to their dependence on independent claims 1 and 11. App. Br. 27. As
we find claims 1 and 11 anticipated by Chow, claims 3 and 13 fall therewith.
With respect to claim 5, Appellants contend Chow or Schlacht, alone
or in combination, do not teach or suggest the limitations recited therein.
Appellants assert Schlacht's Figure 3, steps 70, 82, and 84, do not suggest
receiving an indication from a profile server that a server device is not
associated with a video provisioning system profile as claimed, but rather
"discloses a customer calling a TV company" (App. Br. 28). We agree
Schlacht, alone or in combination with Chow, does not teach or suggest the
contested claim limitation. Thus, although we deem the contested claim
limitation of claim 5 would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled
artisan, we are constrained by the record before us and do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 5, as the Examiner has not made a prima facie
case of obviousness over the combination of Chow and Schlacht. We also
do not sustain the rejection of claims 6-8, dependent therefrom.
DECISION
6
Appeal2014-004660
Application 13/196,650
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 11, 12, and 17-22
under 35 U.S.C. §102 is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 4, 9, 10 and 14--16 under 35
U.S.C. §102 is reversed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 3 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 5-8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
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-IN-PART
7