Lieven Trappeniers et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2019

11961966 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2019)

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.
11/961,966 12/20/2007 Lieven Trappeniers LUTZ 200884US01 7215
48116 7590 12/02/2019
FAY SHARPE/NOKIA
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843
EXAMINER
SAFAIPOUR, BOBBAK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2665
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2019 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):
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
docketing@faysharpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LIEVEN TRAPPENIERS, MICHAEL FREDERIK FRANCOIS
ALBERT BRACKX, ZHE LOU, SIGURD VAN BROECK, MARC
BRUNO FRIEDA GODON, and JOHAN GEORGES PROSPER CRIEL
Appeal 2018-008836
Application 11/961,966
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–14. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ALCATEL
LUCENT. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-008836
Application 11/961,966
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a system for media content delivery to a
media destination device, a related input reception device, a related
association device, and a related multimedia delivery device. Spec. Title.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for media content delivery to at least one
media destination device (DD1) of a plurality of media
destinations devices (DD1, DD2, DD3) based on an input of an
input reception device (IRD) physically separate from said at
least one media destination device, said input selecting said
media content, wherein said system for media content delivery
further comprises:
an associating device (AD), comprising: a processor and
storage configured to store and provide, to an associated and
physically separate media delivery device of the plurality of
media destination devices, information identifying an
association between said input reception device (IRD) and at
least one physically separate media destination device (DD1) of
said plurality of media destination devices (DD1, DD2, DD3),
said at least one physically separate media destination device
being physically separate from said input reception device.
Appeal Br. 45 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–12 and 142 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Tedenvall (US 2007/0288970 A1;
published Dec. 13, 2007), Yamamoto et al. (US 7,454,401 B2; issued Nov.
18, 2008) (“Yamamoto”), and Christoph Seidler, RFID Opportunities for

2 In the Final Action, the Examiner identified claims 1–2 and 14 in the
rejection header. Final Act. 9. The Examiner, however, addressed claims 1–
12 and 14 in the body of the rejection. Id. at 9–23. We consider the
identification of claims in the header harmless error, and we identify the
correct claims here for clarity.
Appeal 2018-008836
Application 11/961,966
3
mobile telecommunication services, ITU-T TECH. WATCH, May 2005
(“Seidler”). Final Act. 9–23.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Tedenvall, Yamamoto, Seidler, and Clarke (US
2006/0181394 A1; Aug. 17, 2006). Final Act. 23–24.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are persuaded by Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner erred.
With respect to claim 1, we specifically agree with Appellant (Appeal
Br. 16–19; Reply Br. 6–8) that the Examiner erred in finding the cited
teachings of Tedenvall, Yamamoto, and Seidler teach or suggest
an associating device (AD) comprising: a processor and storage
configured to store and provide, to an associated and physically
separate media delivery device of the plurality of media
destination devices, information identifying an association
between said input reception device {IRD) and at least one
physically separate media destination device (DD1),
as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 16–19.
Appellant argues that the cited portions of Yamamoto (col. 5: 20–40)
merely teach that “contents data” is provided to “the search requesting
apparatus.” See id. at 16–17. Appellant further argues that “contents data” in
Yamamoto refers to, for example, audio or video presentations, and the cited
portion does not teach or suggest that Yamamoto’s episode server provides
information identifying an association between an input reception device and
a media destination device to a media delivery device, as claim 1 requires.
See id.
Appeal 2018-008836
Application 11/961,966
4
Appellant further argues that the Examiner erred in finding that
Yamamoto’s teaching that episode server 1 “has the ability to check (i.e.
identify) an association or lack thereof between the component stereo set 2
(i.e. IRD) and at least one other device” teaches or suggests storing and
providing to the an associated and physically separate media delivery device
“information identifying an association between said input reception device
(IRD) and at least one physically separate media destination device (DD1),”
as claim 1 requires. See Appeal Br. 18; see also Ans. 4–5 (citing Yamamoto
cols. 6:21–31, 7:11–38); Final Act. 10.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not clearly identified
teachings in Yamamoto or the other prior art references that teach or suggest
the disputed claim limitations. See Ans. 4–5. In particular, the Examiner has
not clearly identified where Yamamoto teaches “information identifying an
association between said input reception device (IRD) and at least one
physically separate media destination device (DD1).” The Examiner also has
not shown where such information is stored and provided to “an associated
and physically separate media delivery device.”
We do not agree with the Examiner that the ability of Yamamoto’s
server 1 to check for a wireless connection or lack thereof between an IRD
and at least one other device is sufficient to teach the disputed claim
limitations. See Ans. 4–5 (citing Yamamoto cols. 5:20–40, 6:21–31, 7:11–
38). Yamamoto teaches allowing wireless connection only to those
apparatuses with registered user name or group name sets (Yamamoto col.
6:21–31) or in the episode server’s wireless connection area (Yamamoto col.
5:20–40), but nowhere does the Examiner sufficiently identify where
Yamamoto teaches storing and providing “information identifying an
association between said input reception device (IRD) and at least one
Appeal 2018-008836
Application 11/961,966
5
physically separate media destination device (DD1)” to “an associated and
physically separate media delivery device,” as claim 1 requires.
Accordingly, on the record before us, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, or of independent claims 3, 4, 6,
and 12, which recited similar limitations, over the combination of Tedenvall,
Yamamoto, and Seidler. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a)
rejection of claims 2, 5, 7–11, and 14, dependent therefrom, over the
combination of Tedenvall, Yamamoto, and Seidler. We also do not sustain
the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 13 over the combination of
Tedenvall, Yamamoto, Seidler, and Clarke, as the Examiner did not find that
Clarke cures the deficiencies of Tedenvall, Yamamoto, and Seidler with
regard to the disputed limitations.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1–14.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–12, 14

103(a) Tedenvall, Yamamoto,
Seidler
1–12, 14

13 103(a) Tedenvall, Yamamoto,
Seidler, and Clarke
13
Overall Outcome: 1–14
REVERSED