Ex Parte Riley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2018

11782579 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111782,579 07/24/2007
141451 7590 03/26/2018
AT&T Legal Dept. - [HDP]
Attention: Patent Docketing, Room 2A-207
One AT&T Way
Bedminster, NJ 07921
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.
DTV207039 7814
EXAMINER
TELAN, MICHAEL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2018 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 and RANNY Q. SUE
Appeal2017-001893
Application 11/782,579
Technology Center 2400
Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JASON V. MORGAN, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
11, 13-15, and 18-31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a content distribution
Appeal2017-001893
Application 11/782,579
system selecting a first content delivery network or a second content
delivery network in response to a content delivery network identification and
delivering the content to the selected content delivery network. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising:
generating a content delivery network identification;
associating the content delivery network identification and a
publication start time with content, said publication start time
corresponding to a time that content is available for download
from a content delivery network;
selecting a first content delivery network or a second content
delivery network in response to the content delivery network
identification to form a selected content delivery network;
communicating the content to the selected content delivery
network prior to the publication start time; and
after the publication start time, communicating the content to
a user device by the selected content delivery network through a
communication network.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Chemock
Watson
Blum
British Telecommunications
(hereinafter EP507)
US 6, 772,209 B 1
US 2003/0121047 Al
US 2007 /0283449 Al
EP 1 202 507 Al
REJECTIONS
Aug.3,2004
June 26, 2003
Dec. 6, 2007
May 2, 2002
Claims 1, 7-11, 21-23, and 27-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Watson in view of EP507 and Blum.
2
Appeal2017-001893
Application 11/782,579
Claims 13-15 and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Watson, Blum, and Chemock.
Claims 2-6 and 24--26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Watson, EP507, Blum, and Chemock.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and Final Rejection.
We add the following for emphasis. We note that if Appellants failed to
"present arguments on a particular issue - or, more broadly, on a particular
rejection - the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those
uncontested aspects of the rejection." See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072,
1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551F.3d1307, 1313-14
(Fed. Cir. 2008) (The Board may treat arguments Appellant[s] failed to
make for a given ground of rejection as waived).
Claims 1 and 21
Appellants argue, that contrary to the Examiner's finding, Blum does
not teach the limitation of "after the publication start time, communicating
the content to a user device" as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 8-9). Appellants
in particular argue that Blum teaches content delivered to devices 1-N at
times Tl-TN, respectively, where times Tl-TN are prior to the release time
TR for the content (App. Br. 8 citing Fig. 1 and para. 23). Appellants
acknowledge that Blum also teaches that some devices may download the
content after the release time TR (App. Br. 8 citing para. 24).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. At the outset, we
agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not preclude the downloading of
content before the publication start time, nor does claim 1 preclude the
3
Appeal2017-001893
Application 11/782,579
availability of content for download prior to the publication start time (Ans.
3). More importantly, the Examiner finds, and Appellants acknowledge, that
Blum teaches "some devices may download the content after the timing
parameter designated release time TR" (emphasis added) (see Ans. 4 citing
para. 24). Accordingly, Blum teaches the disputed limitation of "after the
publication start time, communicating the content to a user device" as
recited in claim 1. In other words, Blum teaches the content can be
communicated prior or after availability to a user device, thereby meeting
the limitation of "after the publication start time" as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Appellants rely on the same arguments for claim 21 (App. Br. 9--10).
Appellants do not separately argue dependent claims 7-11, 22, and 27-31.
Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 7-11, 21-22,
and 27-31.
Claim 23, 24 and 25
Appellants further argue with respect to claim 23 that Watson does
not teach generating a content delivery network identification, and thus,
Watson could not logically teach that the metadata includes the content
delivery network identification, as in claim 23.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. "[O]ne cannot show
non-obviousness by attacking references individually where ... the
rejections are based on combinations of references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Watson provides a teaching
for metadata comprising a content delivery network identification (Ans. 6
citing para. 22, "[t]ransmission characteristics of the content may include,
4
Appeal2017-001893
Application 11/782,579
for example ... the selected transmission network," i.e., information
regarding the followed transmission path).
The Examiner acknowledges that Watson does not teach generating a
content delivery network identification and associating the content delivery
network identification with content (Ans. 6).
The Examiner relies on EP507 for teaching a system having a server
transmitting data to a user device via either a satellite link (Fig. 1, path A) or
a terrestrial channel (Fig. 1, path B) (paras. 8-9, Fig. 1) (Ans. 6). The
decision as to which data are to be sent over which path may be made on the
basis of information inserted into the data (i.e., metadata) by the server
prescribing which path should be followed (Ans. 6 citing para. 11 ).
We agree with the Examiner's conclusion that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to modify Watson to include means for generating a content delivery
network identification and associating the content delivery network
identification with content, so that the selecting is in response to the content
delivery network identification (Ans. 7). By inserting or associating the
information with the data to be transmitted itself, the application of EP507 to
Watson would serve to better ensure that the data is transmitted via the
appropriate network path as determined by the content management system,
thus improving the robustness of the system and reducing the likelihood of
errors (Ans. 7).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 23 for the
same reasons the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 24 and 25 not
argued separately.
5
Appeal2017-001893
Application 11/782,579
Claims 13-15, 18-20, and 26
Appellants rely on the same arguments as those raised for claims 1
and 23 above for the rejections of claims 13-15, 18-20, and 26 (App. Br.
11-13). Accordingly, for the same reasons we sustain the Examiner's
rejections of claims 13-15, 18-20, and 26.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11, 13-15, and 18-31 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6