Ex Parte WeelDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 201512019015 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 12/019,015 01/24/2008 Martin Weel CT-LBS-007D/US (A031DIV) 9260 71739 7590 04/01/2015 Concert Technology Corporation 5400 Trinity Road, Suite 303 Raleigh, NC 27607 EXAMINER DAFTUAR, SAKET K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2451 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/01/2015 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 MARTIN WEEL ____________ Appeal 2013-001955 Application 12/019,015 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before KEN B. BARRETT, CATHERINE SHIANG, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1–9, 11–13, 15, and 17–23. Claims 10, 14, and 16 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellant identifies Black Hills Media, LLC, a subsidiary of Concert Technology Corporation, as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 1.) Appeal 2013-001955 Application 12/019,015 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates to playing media content on devices in a wireless local area network. (Abstract.) Claims 1 and 13, which are illustrative, read as follows: 1. A method of playing media items, the method comprising: providing a plurality of devices on a local area network, the local area network being operatively coupled to a server on a wide area network; bringing a new device unknown to the local area network and the plurality of devices into proximity of at least one device on the local area network; and while in the proximity of the local area network, wirelessly receiving, by the new device via the wide area network, a list identifying the plurality of devices from the server. 13. A mobile device for effecting the playing of a media item, comprising: a display; a wireless interface operative to communicate over a wide area network; a discovery module operative to receive information from a server on the wide area network regarding at least one other device via the wireless interface when the mobile device comes within proximity of the at least one other device, the at least one other device being on a local area network which is coupled to the server, wherein the mobile device was unknown to the local area network and the at least one other device, the display operative to convey a representation of the at least one other device; and a selector operative to select the representation of the at least one other device; wherein the mobile device is operative to control at least one function of the at least one other device via a Appeal 2013-001955 Application 12/019,015 3 communication which traverses a path from the mobile device over the wide area network through the server to the at least one other device The Examiner rejected claims 1–9, 11, 12, and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fuchs et al. (US 6,970,703 B2; issued Nov. 29, 2005) and Cain et al. (US 7,454,518 B1; filed Nov. 18, 2008). (Final Rej. 4–10.) The Examiner rejected claims 13, and 21–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fuchs and Rosenberger (US 7,340,768 B2; filed Sep. 23, 2003). (Final Rej. 11–14.) The Examiner rejected claims 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fuchs, Rosenberger and Cochran (US 7,240,106 B2; filed Apr. 25, 2001). (Final Rej. 14–16.) Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to Appellant’s Brief (“App. Br.” filed Aug 20, 2012) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.” filed Nov. 12, 2012) for the respective positions of Appellant and the Answer (“Ans.” mailed Sept. 11, 2012) for the positions of the Examiner. ISSUE The dispositive issues presented by Appellant’s contentions are: First Issue: Whether the combination of Fuchs and Cain teaches or suggests the claim 1 limitations: bringing a new device unknown to the local area network and the plurality of devices into proximity of at least one device on the local area network; and while in the proximity of the local area network, wirelessly receiving, by the new device via the wide area Appeal 2013-001955 Application 12/019,015 4 network, a list identifying the plurality of devices from the server. (App. Br. 6–7.) Second Issue: Whether the combination of Fuchs and Rosenberger teaches or suggests the claim 13 limitation: the display operative to convey a representation of the at least one other device; and a selector operative to select the representation of the at least one other device. (App. Br. 9–7.) ANALYSIS First Issue Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in concluding that Fuchs and Cain teach or suggest the disputed claim limitations of claim 1. In particular, Appellant argues that Cain does not teach or suggest an unknown new device coming into proximity of the local area network (LAN), and receiving a list identifying the LAN devices. (App. Br. 6–7; Ans. 5–6.) The Examiner concedes that “Fuchs is silent about . . . the new device was [sic] previously unknown to the local area network and while in the proximity of the local area network, wirelessly receiving, by the new device via the wide area network, a list identifying the plurality of devices from the server.” (Ans. 19.) However, the Examiner concludes that Cain teaches or suggests the disputed claim limitations. (Ans. 19–21.) The Examiner relies on the disclosure in Cain that a “subscriber device,” unknown to a multicast group, can send out a request to join the group, in which case an “access device” “obtains the list of subscriber devices associated with the multicast group from the membership database . . . .” (Ans. 5–6; Cain, col. 3, ll. 33– 55, col. 4, ll. 32–51, col. 6, ll. 20–53.) Appeal 2013-001955 Application 12/019,015 5 Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in relying on the subscriber device to satisfy the limitation of a “new device unknown to the local area network . . . in the proximity of the local area network,” but relying on the access point, obtaining a list of subscriber devices, to satisfy the limitation “wirelessly receiving . . . a list identifying the plurality of devices [on a local area network].” (App. Br. 6–7.) Appellant argues that “the same device, i.e., the new device, is both 1) unknown to the local area network, and 2) wirelessly receives ‘a list identifying the plurality of devices from the server,’” and therefore, the Examiner’s reliance on the subscriber device as the “new device” of claim 1, but on the access device for the required “receiving . . . a list . . . of devices,” is in error. (App. Br. 6.) The Examiner responds by again citing the portions of Cain described above, relying on the subscriber device as the “new device” and on the access device for receiving the list. (Ans. 19–21.) However, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner errs in relying on the “functionality implemented in two separate devices, one a subscriber device and the other an access device (the latter of which Cain explicitly discloses is known to the network).” (App. Br. 6) We agree that claim 1 is not reasonably construed to read the list of local area network devices referenced in the claim on the list of subscriber devices referred to in Cain, while at the same time considering the subscriber device as the new device unknown to the local area network. Therefore, we agree with Appellant that those disclosures of Cain, whether alone or in combination with Fuchs, do not teach or suggest the claim elements at issue. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. Appeal 2013-001955 Application 12/019,015 6 Second Issue Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in concluding that Fuchs and Rosenberger teach or suggest the claim 13 limitation, “the display operative to convey a representation of the at least one other device; and a selector operative to select the representation of the at least one other device.” (App. Br. 9–7; Ans. 12.) In particular, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Fuchs of displays that are included in the “telematics device” and the “remote device” that communicate with each other in the disclosed system. (Ans. 12; Fuchs col. 5, ll. 25–38.) Appellant argues that there is no teaching or suggestion in Fuchs that the displays in question convey a representation of any device, or that there is any ability to select such a representation. (App. Br. 9.) The Examiner responds by again citing the description in Fuchs of the device displays, and also citing the capability of the disclosed system to select either a wide area network or a local area network for communication between the devices. (Ans. 24; Fuchs col. 5, ll. 25–38, col 6, ll. 40–53.) However, the Examiner has not directed our attention to a teaching or suggestion in Fuchs that the disclosed displays are used to “convey a representation” of a device, nor is there any disclosed relationship of the displays to the capability of the system to select between a wide area network and a local area network, which in any event would not pertain to the capability of selecting a representation of a device. Therefore, Appellant has persuaded us that the Examiner errs in concluding that Fuchs, alone or in combination with Rosenberger, teaches or suggests the claim limitation at issue. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 13. Appeal 2013-001955 Application 12/019,015 7 CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 13. We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 2–9, 11–12, and 18–20 over Fuchs and Cain; of claims 21–23 over Fuchs and Rosenberger; and of claims 15 and 17 over Fuchs, Rosenberger and Cochran; which claims are dependent from claims 1 or 13. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–9, 11–13, 15, and 17- 23 is reversed. REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation