Ex Parte Patel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2016

12019766 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/019,766 01125/2008
98417 7590 08/09/2016
Otterstedt, Ellenbogen & Kammer, LLP
P.O. Box 381
Cos Cob, CT 06807-0381
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
VipulPatel
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.
TWC 07-32/1033-10 1639
EXAMINER
MENDOZA, TIJNIOR 0
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2423
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/09/2016 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 VIPUL PATEL, JIAN YU, JACK MILLER,
and JOHN CALLAHAN
Appeal2015-001852
Application 12/019, 7 66
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-16, 18-21, 23-35, 37-39, 43, and44. 1 Claims
17, 22, 36, and 40-42 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 In the Appeal Brief, Appellants identify Time Warner Cable Enterprises
LLC, as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal2015-001852
Application 12/019, 7 66
THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed inventions are directed to a video
content system with a digital set-top terminal that includes a partitioned hard
disk. (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A video content system comprising:
a head end;
a server module located in said head end;
a management module located in said head end;
a video content network coupled to said server module
and said management module; and
a digital set-top terminal coupled to said video content
network at a location remote from said head end, said digital
set-top terminal in tum comprising:
a processor;
an interface coupled to said processor and said
video content network; and
a memory module having at least a mountable first
partition containing digital video programming received
over said video content network, and a mountable second
partition containing supplemental resources cached in
said second partition by said server module over said
video content network, a size of said second partition
being configurable by said management module, said
supplemental resources comprising at least one
application.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 7, 12, 13, 23-26, 29, 34, and 35
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US
2
Appeal2015-001852
Application 12/019, 7 66
2003/0154485 Al, pub. Aug. 14, 2003) and Huckins (US 7,072,955 Bl,
issued July 4, 2006). (Final Act. 6-10.)
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson, Huckins, and DeCenzo et al.
(US 2005/0246381 Al, pub. Nov. 3, 2005). (Final Act. 11-13.)
The Examiner rejected claims 8, 21, 30, and 39 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson, Huckins, and Perng et al. (US
200410002969 Al, pub. Jan. 1, 2004). (Final Act. 13-15.)
The Examiner rejected claims 9, 14--16, and 31under35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson, Huckins, and Wannamaker et
al. (US 2004/0031052 Al, pub. Feb. 12, 2004). (Final Act. 15-18.)
The Examiner rejected claims 10, 18, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Johnson, Huckins, and Okayama et al. (US
2002/0053090 Al, pub. May 2, 2002). (Final Act. 18-20.)
The Examiner rejected claims 11, 19, 20, 33, 37, 38, 43, and 44 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson, Huckins, and
Church et al. (US 2007/0136533 Al, pub. June 14, 2007). (Final Act. 20-
25.)
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issues: 2
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 9, 2014); the Reply Brief
(filed Nov. 17, 2014); the Final Office Action (mailed Jan. 23, 2014); and
the Examiner's Answer (mailed Sept. 17, 2014) for the respective details.
3
Appeal2015-001852
Application 12/019, 7 66
Issue One: Whether the combination of Johnson and Huckins teaches
or suggests the independent claim 1 limitation, "a memory module having at
least a mountable first partition containing digital video programming
received over said video content network, and a mountable second partition
containing supplemental resources cached in said second partition ... " and
the similar limitation recited in independent claim 23. (App. Br. 7-8.)
Issue Two: Whether the combination of Johnson, Huckins, and
DeCenzo teaches or suggests the claim 6 limitation, "said supplemental
resources comprise at least one of modules and drivers configured to be
dynamically linked and loaded within said operating system for accessing
and exercising the at least one additional device." (App. Br. 9-10.)
Issue Three: Whether the combination of Johnson, Huckins, and
Okayama teaches or suggests the claim 18 limitation, "wherein said
supplemental resources are quarantined from a user of said digital set-top
terminal such that there is no way for said user to directly access said second
partition." (App. Br. 11-12.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner errs. We disagree with Appellants' arguments,
and we adopt as our own ( 1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 6-25)
and (2) the corresponding reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 23-29).
We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the Examiner and
emphasize the following.
4
Appeal2015-001852
Application 12/019, 7 66
Issue One
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner relies on the disclosure
in Johnson of partitioning storage space in a video recording system,
including a partitionable hard drive memory with partitions for storing
recorded video and data application partitions, and which can be
reconfigured based on consumption and remaining memory. (Final Act. 7;
Johnson, Abstract, Fig. 9, i-fi-146, 47, 51, 53.) The Examiner also relies on the
disclosure in Huckins of controlling remote storage devices via commands
to create, delete, or modify partitions, including naming a volume to mount
on which to create a partition. (Final Act. 8; Huckins, col. 2, 11. 14--23, col.
5, 11. 14--20.)
Appellants argue, "[t]he memory allocations of Johnson and Huckins
are simply created and managed by the respective operating systems and are
not of the type that are mountable or mounted, essentially as claimed."
(App. Br. 8.) We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding the above
identified portions of Johnson and Huckins teach or suggest the mountable
partitions limitation of the claims. (Ans. 23-24.) In particular, Huckins
specifically teaches the use of mountable volumes that are partitioned.
(Huckins, col. 5, 11. 15-16.) We also agree with the Examiner's claim
construction:
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Disk
partitioning is the act of dividing a hard disk drive (HOD) into
multiple logical storage units referred to as partitions, which
may reasonably be interpreted as the claimed "mountable
first ... and second partitions." The examiner notes that the
current claim language does not preclude the use of logical
partitions, as taught by Huckins.
5
Appeal2015-001852
Application 12/019, 7 66
(Ans. 24.) Appellants cite a list of API's in the Specification including:
"Mount [-] Mounts the partition to a logical node passed as an argument."
(Reply Br. 8; Spec. 23.) We are not persuaded this is inconsistent with the
Examiner's construction. "In the patentability context, claims are to be
given their broadest reasonable interpretations ... limitations are not to be
read into the claims from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Issue Two
In finding Johnson, Huckins, and DeCenzo teach or suggest the
additional limitations of dependent claim 6, the Examiner relies on the
disclosures in both Johnson and DeCenzo of interfaces to multiple devices,
including the disclosure in DeCenzo of a virtual machine and operating
system supporting a variety of applications and functions, such as an
interactive program guide, a video-on-demand module, a game module or
other applications. (Final Act. 12-13; Johnson ,-r 45; DeCenzo ,-r 26.)
Appellants argue:
The [cited art] does not teach or suggest that the operating
system support is provided by supplemental resources cached in
a certain partition of a digital set-top terminal, or that the
supplemental resources enable the exercise of the devices
connected to the digital set-top terminal, essentially as claimed.
(App. Br. 10.) However, we agree with the Examiner:
Johnson further recites corresponding applications ... for
supporting interaction with a corresponding device .... [O]ne
of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the applications
of multimedia system 200 are necessary to link and support
connectivity to the additional devices ....
[W]hile Johnson is silent to disclose an operating system that
"links and loads" a plurality of applications, e.g. modules;
6
Appeal2015-001852
Application 12/019, 7 66
DeCenzo cures the deficiencies of Johnson by disclosing an
operating system (OS) that supports gaming modules or
applications. That is, DeCenzo recites that it is well-known in
the art to have a set top box loaded with an operating system
OS which supports a variety of applications, modules and
functions ....
(Ans. 25-26.)
Issue Three
In finding Johnson, Huckins, and Okayama teach or suggest the
additional limitations of dependent claim 18, which requires "supplemental
resources ... quarantined from a user," the Examiner relies on the
disclosures in Okayama of a CPU which secures in a storage unit an
exclusive memory area exclusively usable by a service provider or a
broadcasting provider. (Final Act. 19-20; Okayama, Abstract, i-fi-f 10, 80.)
Appellants argue the Examiner errs, because the exclusive use of the
memory area in Okayama is "based on an instruction made by the user of
the data receiving apparatus." (App. Br. 11; Okayama ,-r 81.) However,
we agree with the Examiner that Okayama's explicit provision- "[t]he
invention secures an exclusive memory area exclusively usable by a data
provider or sender in a data receiving apparatus" - at least teaches or
suggests the subject matter of claim 18. (Ans. 28-29; Okayama i-f 10.)
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the obviousness rejection
of claims 1 and 23 over Johnson and Huckins; of claim 6 over Johnson,
Huckins, and DeCenzo; and of claim 18 over Johnson, Huckins, and
Okayama.
7
Appeal2015-001852
Application 12/019, 7 66
We also sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2--4, 7, 12, 13,
24--26, 29, 34, and 35 over Johnson and Huckins; of claims 5, 27, and 28
over Johnson, Huckins, and DeCenzo, of claims 8, 21, 30, and 39 over
Johnson, Huckins, and Perng; of claims 9, 14--16, and 31 over Johnson,
Huckins, and Wannamaker, of claims 10 and 32 over Johnson, Huckins, and
Okayama; and of claims 11, 19, 20, 33, 37, 38, 43, and 44 over Johnson,
Huckins, and Church, which rejections are not argued separately with
particularity. (App. Br. 8-12.)
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-16, 18-21, 23-35,
37-39, 43, and 44.
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
8