Systems and Software Enterprises, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 18, 2022

2021001452 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2022)

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. 14/678,810 04/03/2015 Christopher P. Healy 101790.0010US1 9031 149344 7590 03/18/2022 Umberg Zipser LLP 1920 Main Street Suite 750 Irvine, CA 92614 EXAMINER LI, LIANG Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2143 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/18/2022 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): patents@umbergzipser.com rdean@umbergzipser.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CHRISTOPHER P. HEALY and EDWIN EDILLION ________________ Appeal 2021-001452 Application 14/678,810 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 10-16, and 18-23.1 Claims 8, 9, 17, and 24 have been canceled. Appeal Br. 11-13 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2012). Appellant identifies Systems and Software Enterprises, LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-001452 Application 14/678,810 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The claimed subject matter relates to vehicular entertainment systems, and in particular to in-flight entertainment systems that interact with a passenger mobile device. Spec. ¶¶ 3-12. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. An in-flight entertainment system for an aircraft, where the entertainment system interacts with a passenger mobile device over a wireless network, comprising: a host server disposed within an aircraft and configured to store a plurality of content; a display screen disposed within the aircraft and coupled with the host server, wherein at least some of the plurality of content can be presented on the display screen; the wireless network comprising a full duplex communication channel with a WebSocket protocol that allows for coupling of, and communication between, the passenger mobile device with the host server; wherein the passenger mobile device comprises a factory- installed web browser, and wherein the passenger mobile device is configured to connect and communicate with the host server via the factory-installed web browser; wherein the host server transmits data, via the wireless network, to cause the factory-installed web browser to automatically redirect the web browser to a predefined webpage and render an interactive visual interface within the web browser, wherein the interactive visual interface is context-sensitive and dynamically generated to (i) vary with the content presented on the display screen and (ii) enable a user to manipulate the content displayed on the display screen using the web browser, and wherein the passenger mobile device is portable and specific to the passenger on the aircraft and wherein the host Appeal 2021-001452 Application 14/678,810 3 server is specific to the aircraft. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1-5, 7, 10-14, 16, 18-21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Navarro (US 2015/0156283 A1; June 4, 2015), Sizelove (US 2009/0077595 A1; Mar. 19, 2009), and Hanson, Joe, “What Are Websockets?”, PubNub, Sept. 11, 2013, http://www.pubnub.com/blog/what-are-websockets/ (“Hanson”). Final Act. 2-11. Claims 6 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Navarro, Sizelove, Hanson, and Antoniou, Stelios, “Networking Basics: TCP, UDP, TCP/IP and OSI Model, Pluralsight, Oct. 9, 2011, http://www.pluralsight.com/blog/it-ops/networking-basics-tcp-udp-tcpip-osi- models (“Antoniou”). Final Act. 11-12. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Navarro, Sizelove, Hanson, and Danciu (US 9,490,998 B1; Nov. 8, 2016). Final Act. 12-13. ANALYSIS Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because Navarro does not teach or suggest a passenger mobile device communicating with a host server. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant argues that Navarro teaches client device 20 communicates with server 18, which is the server of the display itself, rather than a separate host server configured to store content, such as host server 36. Id. Appellant argues Sizelove and Hanson do not cure this deficiency. Id. at 5. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Navarro teaches server 18 is coupled to display 10. Appeal 2021-001452 Application 14/678,810 4 Ans. 15 (citing Navarro ¶ 29). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Navarro teaches display 10, and therefore server 18, is configured to retrieve content from content module 36 for presentation purposes. Id. (citing Navarro ¶ 34). Server 18 then transmits the data to cause the client device to redirect to a web page. Id. Appellant’s argument that Navarro’s server 18 does not teach or suggest the claimed “host server” limitation is unpersuasive. As a matter of claim construction, we apply the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim terms, consistent with the specification, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Claim 1 recites “a host server disposed within an aircraft and configured to store a plurality of content” and “a display screen disposed within the aircraft and coupled with the host server.” Claim 1 does not recite that the host server must be remote to the display. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the fact that server 18 is directly coupled to display 10, not remote from display 10, is unpersuasive of Examiner error. Second, Appellant argues server 18 does not store a plurality of content, which is instead stored on server 36. Reply Br. 2. However, the fact that server 36 initially stores the plurality of content and then delivers that content to server 18 does not change the fact that an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that server 18 would inherently store the plurality of content prior to and during its presentation on display 10.2 See Navarro ¶ 34. 2 See PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc. v TWI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 773 F.3d 1186, 1194-95 (Fed Cir. 2014) (“[I]nherency may supply a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis.”). Appeal 2021-001452 Application 14/678,810 5 Appellant also argues the Examiner has provided no support for the contention that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Hanson with Navarro and Sizelove. Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 4. According to Appellant, the Examiner disregards the many disadvantages of combining the references. Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 4. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Hanson teaches WebSockets allow for bi-directional real-time communications with improved speed. Ans. 17-18. The Examiner acknowledges that WebSockets have disadvantages, but finds an ordinarily skilled artisan would have made the combination in this scenario because of these speed improvements. Id. at 18. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because weighing the advantages and disadvantages of WebSockets amounts to an engineering tradeoff-a decision well within the skill of ordinarily skilled artisans. Hanson’s teaching of the advantages and disadvantages of WebSockets does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage its use in the proposed combination. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). For these reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim 10, which Appellant argues is patentable for the same reasons. See Appeal Br. 7-8. We also sustain the rejections of claims 2-7, 11-16, and 18-23, which Appellant do not separately argue, for the same reasons. See id. at 6-8. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed Appeal 2021-001452 Application 14/678,810 6 1-5, 7, 10- 14, 16, 18- 21, 23 103 Navarro, Sizelove, Hanson 1-5, 7, 10- 14, 16, 18- 21, 23 6, 15 103 Navarro, Sizelove, Hanson, Antoniou 6, 15 22 103 Navarro, Sizelove, Hanson, Danciu 22 Overall Outcome 1-7, 10-16, 18-23 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED