11828292 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2016)

Ex Parte Riley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 25, 2016

11828292 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111828,292 0712512007 20991 7590 10/25/2016 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. PA TENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION CA I LAI I Al09 2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Xavier D. Riley 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. PD-207013 9078 EXAMINER MARANDI, JAMES R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2421 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 10/25/2016 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 XAVIER D. RILEY, SON AM N. PARIKH, and KSATRIAG. WILLIAMS 1 Appeal2015-002997 Application 11/828,292 Technology Center 2400 Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, HUNG H. BUI, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-32, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is The DIRECTV Group, Inc. (App. Br. 2.) Appeal2015-002997 Application 11/828,292 Introduction According to Appellants, their disclosure "relates to a content processing and delivery system and, more specifically, to a system for managing the lifecycle of content within the system." (Spec. i-f 1.) Illustrative Claim Claims 1 and 1 7 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: electronically transferring content in an electronic data file from a content repository to a content delivery network based on and prior to a publication start time and electronically storing the content therein, said content having the publication start time and a purge time associated therewith; electronically publishing the content from the content delivery network to a user device through a communication network in response to the publication start time; and purging the content from the content delivery network at the purge time. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Chemock et al. US 6,772,209 Bl Aug.3,2004 REJECTIONS Claims 1-10, 12, 13, 15-26, 28, 29, 31, 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S. C. Â§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Chemock. (Final Act. 5-14.) 2 Appeal2015-002997 Application 11/828,292 Claims 11, 14, 27, 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chemock. (Final Act. 14--16.) ISSUES ( 1) Whether the Examiner erred in finding Chemock discloses "electronically transferring content in an electronic data file from a content repository to a content delivery network based on and prior to a publication start time," as recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added), and commensurately recited in independent claim (2) Whether the Examiner erred in finding Chemock discloses "publishing the content from the content delivery network to a user device through a communication network in response to the publication start time," as recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added), and commensurately recited in independent claim 1 7. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions and we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3- 16) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. (Ans. 16-21.) We concur with the findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we highlight the following for emphasis. 2 2 Only those arguments made by Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments Appellants did not make in the briefs have not been 3 Appeal2015-002997 Application 11/828,292 A. " ... based on and prior to a publication start time ... ;; Appellants argue the Examiner's findings are in error because "Chemock is silent as to the source node transferring content in any way based on a publication start time. Moreover, none of the parameters described in Chemock could be reasonably construed as a publication start time." (App. Br. 6.) We disagree. As the Examiner finds, and we agree, Chemock discloses: [ C]ontent is transferred/ distributed [from] central sites (source node/ content repository) 10, 15 (Fig. 1) to a delivery network comprising intermediate nodes 11, 16, 17 and Head Ends 12, 18, and 19 and destination 13 (Col. 4, lines 8, through Col. 6, line 31 ); Chemock discloses content delivery network comprising of nodes/ storage devices as in Figs. 1, 2, and 3, including storage at STB at 13 which is connected to and is part of the content delivery network (Col. 6, line 32 through Col. 8, line 6). It is the network which manages/ transfers content to user's device storage, where a decision is made by the Display APP (Fig. 4, 46), in the recipient node (such as an STB; Col. 12, line 58 through Col. 13, line 42), to transfer said content in accordance with the Display Time ( 45), and prior to publication/display time, to the user display). (Ans. 17.) With regard to the "publication start time" in particular, the Examiner further finds Chemock discloses "content control parameters such as 'start validity time' and 'display time .... "' (Ans. 18; see also Chemock 5:48- 57; 6:8-12.) We note, for emphasis, the Examiner's findings are also supported by additional portions of Chemock's disclosure, which discloses a source node distributing content to an intermediate node along with control/disposition information, wherein the intermediate node directs the considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 4 Appeal2015-002997 Application 11/828,292 content to a recipient node "based on" control/disposition information that includes a "schedule for handling said content at said recipient node." (Chemock, 14:11-65 (claims 1, 5, 8, 9).) Appellants argue the Examiner's interpretation of the term "publication start time" is "overbroad and unreasonable" because, according to Appellants, their Specification "provides an explicit definition for the term 'publication start time,' which the Examiner has ignored." (Reply Br. 4.) In particular, Appellants assert the Specification defines "publication start time" as "the time that the content is available for download by one of the user devices from the content delivery network .... " (Id. (citing Spec. ii 65).) We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's interpretation of "publication start time." It is well settled that, during prosecution, the terms of a claim must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with Appellants' Specification, as they would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054--55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zietz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). We agree the Examiner's reading of "publication start time" as encompassing Chemock's control parameters of "start validity time" and "display time" is reasonable in light of the Specification. And as the Examiner finds, and we agree, Chemock discloses distribution of content to a content delivery network "based on and prior to" a start validity time and display time. (E.g., Ans. 16-19.) B. " ... publishing the content from the content delivery network to a user device ... " Appellants also argue the Examiner's findings are in error because "a set-top box launching the display application on the connected display, as in 5 Appeal2015-002997 Application 11/828,292 Chemock, is not the same as electronically publishing content from the content delivery network to a user device through a communication network in response to the publication start time." (App. Br. 8.) In other words, Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Chemock's set-top box is part of a "content delivery network" because, according to Appellants, "the set- top box, personal computer, pager, and palmtop computer of Chemock are not a content delivery network." (See id.) We are not persuaded of error. As the Examiner finds, and we agree, "[a] set-top box connected with a display device comprises a network of two devices communicating over a network." (Ans. 21.) In addition, the set-top box in Chemock is a "recipient node" in a broader network that also comprises, inter alia, a source node and an intermediate node. (Chemock Fig. 1; 4:8-15, 14:11-65; see also Final Act. 6-7, Ans. 5---6.) For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) rejection of claim 1. Appellants collectively argue the rejection of all claims with regard to the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. (App. Br. 9-10.) Separate patentability is not argued for independent claim 1 7 or any of the dependent claims. Therefore, based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 1-32 based on claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Accordingly, we are also not persuaded of error in the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) rejection of claims 9-10, 12, 13, 15-26, 28, 29, 31, or 32, or in the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of claims 11, 14, 27, or 30, not separately argued. 6 Appeal2015-002997 Application 11/828,292 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-32 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv). AFFIRMED 7