13073795 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2017)

Ex Parte Wong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 21, 2017

13073795 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 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. 13/073,795 03/28/2011 Ling Jun Wong 113748-6066US 8553 103865 Procopio - SPE 525 B Street Suite 2200 7590 04/25/2017 EXAMINER SALTARELLI, DOMINIC D San Diego, CA 92101 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2421 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/25/2017 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 @ procopio .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LING JUN WONG, CHARLES MCCOY, and TRUE XIONG Appeal 2016-008470 Application 13/073,7951 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON V. MORGAN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges. JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1—20, which are all the claims pending in the present application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Sony Corporation. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-008470 Application 13/073,795 STATEMENT OF THE CASE “The present invention relates to IPTV [internet protocol television] devices, and more specifically, to graphical native user interface and control.” Spec. 1:14—16. Independent claim 1 is reproduced below with emphasis and bracketed material added. 1. A method of managing settings for a first network-connected device using a second device, the method comprising: accessing the first network-connected device configured as an IPTV client from the second device, [LI] wherein the IPTV client is configured without a GUI [graphical user interface] but authenticated to play media content and the second device is configured with a GUI but not authenticated to play the media content; retrieving current settings of the IPTV client; modifying and/or controlling settings of the IPTV client using a display of the second device; and communicating the modifications and/or controls of the settings to the IPTV client. The Rejections Claims 1—20 are provisionally rejected for non-statutory obviousness- type double patenting over claims 1—26 of copending Application No. 13/077,509. Final Act. 5. Claims 1—20 are rejected, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over Wilson (US 2007/0112939; May 17, 2007) and Walter (US 2006/0293100; Dec. 28, 2006). Id. at 5-10. 2 Appeal 2016-008470 Application 13/073,795 ANALYSIS Obviousness of claims 1—6, 10—17, 19, and 20 Appellants address claims 1—6, 10-17, 19, and 20 collectively. Br. 12. Based on Appellant’s arguments, we decide the appeal of these claim rejections on the basis of representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 1 for at least the following reasons. First, Appellants argue the Examiner unreasonably reads limitation LI on Wilson’s “IPTV server-based home automation system in which controllable devices at home are controlled using a[n] IPTV GUI downloaded on a [set-top-box (STB)].” Br. 11. This argument is unpersuasive because it fails to respond to the Examiner’s reliance on Wilson’s download of a GUI to a personal computing device (e.g., laptop computer), not onto a STB, to teach or suggest the disputed recitation. Final Act. 6 (citing Wilson || 24, 27—30). Second, Appellants argue Wilson’s STB fails to meet limitation LI because: [Wilson’s] STB . . . cannot ‘play media content’ as stated in claimed limitation (b). A STB . . . cannot play media content as they are merely input devices. Therefore, [Wilson’s STB] does not teach or suggest [the claimed] IPTV client. . . authenticated to play media content. Br. 12. This argument fails to explain why Wilson’s STB, despite outputting reproduced content to the IPTV 133 (see Wilson’s Fig. 2), would be understood as merely an input device and not “playing” media content. See Ans. 3 (finding content reproduction and output by an STB is “playing” of content; “very purpose of a STB is to play media content”). Accordingly, 3 Appeal 2016-008470 Application 13/073,795 we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1—6, 10-17, 19, and 20. Claims 7—9 and 18 Dependent claim 7 recites in relevant part, “sending the selected media content to the IPTV client for playback once media content currently playing on the IPTV client finishes, [L2] wherein the selected media content is required to be played on the IPTV client only.'” (emphasis and bracketed material added). Claims 8 and 9 depend from claim 7. Claim 18 recites similar subject matter as claim 7. Based on Appellant’s arguments, we decide the appeal of these claim rejections on the basis of claim 7. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)( 1 )(iv) (2015). The Examiner finds Walter meets limitation L2 because Walter discloses verifying a particular display device and/or a particular user are authorized to use the video game data. See Final Act. 8 (citing Walter 175). Appellants contend claim 7 requires playing of selected content on only the first device (“configured as an IPTV client” (claim 1)) and thereby prohibits playing of the content on any other device. Br. 14. Appellants further contend Walter’s authentication of a device for playing selected content does not teach or suggest the claimed prohibition of playing content on all other devices. Id. We agree with Appellants. The plain and ordinary meaning of limitation L2 indicates the selected media content is played on the specific IPTV client and no other. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s the obviousness rejection of claims 7—9 and 18. 4 Appeal 2016-008470 Application 13/073,795 Double Patenting Appellants do not address the rejection of claims 1—20 for non- statutory obviousness-type double patenting. Arguments not made are considered waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015). Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1—20. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—6, 10—17, 19, and 20 as obvious. We reverse the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 7—9 and 18 as obvious. We summarily affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1—20 for nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting. 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 5