Ex Parte Palm et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 13, 2017

13622910 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2017)

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.
13/622,910 09/19/2012 Jorg Palm 12313-PT-US JOST:0151 5232
69590 7590 04/17/2017
International TP T aw Omim
EXAMINER
P.O. BOX 691927
HOUSTON, TX 77269-1927
EDWARDS, JASON T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2144
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/17/2017 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):
docketing @ iiplg. com
barry.blount@iiplg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JORG PALM and RAJIV SINGH
Appeal 2016-007397
Application 13/622,910
Technology Center 2100
Before IRVIN E. BRANCH, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 2, 6, 8, 10-13, and 15—21. Claims 3—5, 7, 9, and 14 are canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-007397
Application 13/622,910
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to presenting multimedia objects on user
devices. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below with the “disputed limitations”
emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for presenting a multimedia object at a user
device connected to a proxy server in a second network providing
functions to render the multimedia object, the multimedia object
having a predetermined format and being embedded into a web
page, wherein,
a request of the web page by the user device is passed to
the proxy server;
the proxy server evaluates the request whether the user
device belongs to a predetermined device type, and in case of the
user device being a predetermined device type, the proxy server
modifies the web page to include a command to invoke a
program when the web page is received and processed in a web
browser of the user device including a detection function
executable by means of the web browser in its basic
configuration and transmits the modified web page to the user
device', and
the detection function analyzes the web page to detect the
multimedia object of the given format embedded into the web
page, and replaces a reference to a specific multimedia player
with a reference to a multimedia player function prompting the
web browser to invoke the multimedia player function, the
multimedia player function being adapted to render the
multimedia object.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10—13, 15, 16, and 18—20 stand rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Carlson (US 2008/0235566
Al; published Sept. 25, 2008) and Hunt (WO 2004/040481 Al; published
May 13, 2004). Ans. 3—12.
2
Appeal 2016-007397
Application 13/622,910
Claim 17 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Carlson, Hunt, and Kim (US 8,116,753 B2; issued Feb.
14,2012). Final Act. 12-13.
Claim 21 is stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Carlson, Hunt, and Khedouri (US 2008/0184359 Al;
published July 31, 2008). Final Act. 13—14.
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants’ contentions, alleging error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 because Hunt does not teach the disputed
limitations. App. Br. 8—11; Reply Br. 3—5. We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which the
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. Ans. 3—15.
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following for emphasis.
Claim 1
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Hunt does not teach
“the user device being connected to a proxy server in a second network
providing functions to render the multimedia object.” App. Br. 9—10. The
contention is unpersuasive in view of the Examiner’s finding that Hunt
teaches
an intermediate or proxy server that also performs, as further
disclosed by Hunt, providing functions to render multimedia
objects, such as is involved in providing information/multimedia
content (e.g., images, videos, audio) rendered according to
functions (e.g., rules, algorithms, tags, attributes in the markup,
etc.) and/or controls involving format conversion, rendering,
3
Appeal 2016-007397
Application 13/622,910
displaying, and/or playing of the data by the client according to
controls (e.g., tags).
Ans. 13 (citing Hunt p. 13,11. 10-15; p. 17,11. 22—23; and p. 22,11. 16—20
(internal citations omitted)).
Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s finding.
Appellants argue “[t]he Examiner thus erroneously equates a web browser
displaying a web page without multimedia objects in Hunt, with the
rendering of multimedia objects, as recited in the independent claims.”
Reply Br. 3. This argument is unpersuasive in view of Hunt’s teaching that
the information content includes “images, video, [and] audio information.”
Hunt p. 13,1. 13.
Appellants also contend Hunt does not teach “in case of the user
device being a predetermined device type, the proxy server modifies the web
page to include a command to invoke a program when the web page is
received and processed in a web browser of the user device.” App. Br. 10.
This contention is unpersuasive in view of the Examiner’s finding that the
combination of Hunt and Carlson teaches the limitation. Ans. 13—14. In
particular, the Examiner finds Hunt discloses
algorithms that take into account the hardware and software
capabilities of the requesting device and content can be rendered
based on the particular device, but also discloses inserting logic
into the transmission that, upon knowing the characteristics of
the client device, determine aspects of content delivery.
Ans. 13 (citing Huntp. 8,11. 8—21; andp. 18,11. 1—15 (internal citations
omitted)). The Examiner finds Hunt’s logic may include a command to
invoke a program as disclosed by Carlson, to thereby select “from among a
variety of multimedia content players (e.g., video form player, audio player,
etc.) to play appropriately retrieved media content based on player
4
Appeal 2016-007397
Application 13/622,910
functionality and availability on the client device.” Id. 14 (citing Carlson
1132-34).
Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings. See,
e.g., Reply Br. 3^4 (“Hunt relates that the server browser takes into account
the characteristics of the user device when rendering/displaying/playing of
data on a client without a web browser.”) In particular, Appellants do not
rebut the Examiner’s findings as to the teachings of Carlson. Ans. 14 (citing
Carlson || 32—34). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck
& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants’ additional arguments (App. Br. 10—11; Reply Br. 4—5)
also are unpersuasive because they overlook the Examiner’s findings with
respect to Carlson (Ans. 14). Thus, in view of the foregoing, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Claim 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the server
provides the multimedia player function to the user device.” Appellants
argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8 because Hunt does not
disclose this limitation. App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 6.
The Examiner finds Carlson discloses “providing to the client in the
client-proxy relationship of Hunt a command to call a particular player
function (e.g., video or audio player).” Ans. 15.
Appellants’ reply does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s finding.
Reply Br. 6 (“Carlson describes native code being used to present timed
media,” which “is not the same as a server providing a multimedia player
function to a user device.”).
5
Appeal 2016-007397
Application 13/622,910
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8.
The Remaining Claims
Appellants argue claims 2, 6, 10-13, 15, 16, and 18—20 based on
arguments presented for claim 1. Thus, we sustain the rejection of these
claims.
Appellants argue claim 17 based on arguments presented for claim 8,
adding that Kim does not cure the deficiencies with respect to the rejection
of claim 8. Because we do not find there to be deficiencies in the rejection
of claim 8, we sustain the rejection of claim 17.
Appellants argue claim 21 on the basis of arguments presented for
claim 1, adding that Khedouri does not cure the deficiencies with respect to
the rejection of claim 1. Because we do not find there to be deficiencies in
the rejection of claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claim 21.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 10-13, and 15—21
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).
AFFIRMED
6