Ex Parte Acharya et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2014

11427879 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2014)

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.
11/427,879 06/30/2006 Swarup Acharya Acharya 29-13 3179
46304 7590 09/15/2014
RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
48 South Service Road
Suite 100
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
MENDOZA, JUNIOR O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2423
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/15/2014 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 SWARUP ACHARYA and BHAWNA GUPTA
________________

Appeal 2012-005472
Application 11/427,879
1

Technology Center 2400
________________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1–8, 11–21, and 23.
2
We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to interrupt processing or trick play
functionality. Spec. 1:19–21. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is
reproduced below:

1
According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Alcatel-Lucent. App.
Br. 1.
2
Claims 9, 10, and 22 were previously cancelled.
Appeal 2012-005472
Application 11/427,879

2
1. A method of recording programming content in a
signal distribution system, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving an interrupt; and
controlling the presentation of a corresponding interrupt
indicator on a user interface screen of a device responsive to the
received interrupt;
wherein the interrupt is indicative of an incoming
communication from a source other than a system user to whom
the interrupt indicator is presented;
wherein the interrupt indicator is superimposed on a
presentation of one or more frames of the programming content
and identifies the source of the interrupt;
wherein the user interface screen further comprises an
activatable pause control that if activated initiates recording of a
portion of the programming content that would otherwise be
presented via the device absent activation of the pause control;
wherein the user interface screen further comprises an
activatable ignore interrupt control that if activated results in
removal of the interrupt indicator and continued presentation of
the programming content via the device;
wherein the activatable pause control and the activatable
ignore interrupt control are presented on the user interface
screen responsive to the received interrupt and in conjunction
with presentation of the interrupt indicator;
wherein subsequent to activation of the pause control the
user interface screen is reconfigured to comprise an activatable
resume programming presentation control that if activated will
result in a resumption of presentation of the programming
content via the device;
wherein activation of the pause control causes a media
server in head end equipment to start streaming of the recorded
portion of the programming content; and
wherein activation of the resume programming
presentation control causes the media server to stop streaming
of the recorded portion of the programming content.

REFERENCES
Palmer US 2001/0038690 A1 Nov. 8, 2001
Appeal 2012-005472
Application 11/427,879

3
Fritsch US 2002/0124258 A1 Sept. 5, 2002
Allen US 2003/0041332 A1 Feb. 27, 2003
Karaoguz US 2004/0116118 A1 June 17, 2004
Ellis US 2005/0229213 A1 Oct. 13, 2005
Katz US 7,103,906 B1 Sept. 5, 2006
Nahumi US 2008/0205435 A1 Aug. 28, 2008

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 17, 20, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as being indefinite. Ans. 5.
Claims 1, 2, 5–7, 11–13, 15, and 17–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Palmer, Ellis, and
Fritsch. Ans. 6–12.
Claims 3, 4, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Palmer, Ellis, Fritsch, and
Karaoguz. Ans. 13–15.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Palmer, Ellis, Fritsch, and Allen. Ans.
16.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Palmer, Ellis, Fritsch, and Katz. Ans.
17.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Palmer, Ellis, Fritsch, and Nahumi.
Ans. 18–19.

Appeal 2012-005472
Application 11/427,879

4
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that claims 1, 17, 20 and 23 are
indefinite?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Palmer, Ellis,
and Fritsch teaches or suggests, “wherein activation of the pause control
causes a media server in head end equipment to start streaming of the
recorded portion of the programming content,” as recited in claim 1 (and
similarly recited in claims 17 and 23)?
Did the Examiner err in finding the features of claims 4, 8, and 23 are
taught by the combination of references listed supra?

ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1, 17, 20, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph
The Examiner finds that:
[V]arious interpretations [of] the claim feature of “activation of
the pause control causes media server in head end equipment to
start streaming of the recorded portion of the programming
content” are indefinite. One of ordinary skill in the art could
interpret the claimed feature as:

In response to the pause command: The recorded content is
streamed to the user’s receiver (as claimed in claim 23 and as
interpreted by appellant); however, there is no disclosure that
supports this feature. In fact, the specification teaches
otherwise since in response to the pause command solely an
RSTP session is created with respect to the user’s device, e.g.
STEP 6. Also, see RTSP protocol SETUP state.

In response to the pause command: The recorded content is
streamed from roaming server 210A to media server 10, as
Appeal 2012-005472
Application 11/427,879

5
suggested by the specification in step 5 of figure 3 (as
interpreted by the examiner). However, this interpretation is
still ambiguous, since this case the claim would state streaming
the “recorded” content to the media server 302, but the content
at this point has not been recorded yet. As the job of media
server 302 is to actually record the content routed by roaming
server 210A.

Ans. 22. Moreover, the Examiner finds that in “STEP 7 of the current
application, [a] user performs trick play command and video transmission
actually starts at this point” (Ans. 25), rather than at STEP 5 (Ans. 24–25) or
STEP 6 (Ans. 24–25). The Examiner also finds that “the recorded content is
not streamed and tuned by the receiver until the user has selected the resume
content option 516.” Ans. 26.
We disagree with the Examiner and agree with Appellants because
“the BPAI also stated that claim language ‘is amenable to two plausible
definitions,’ and hence indefinite, when ‘neither the Specification, nor the
claims, nor the ordinary meanings of the words provides any guidance as to
what Appellant intends to cover with this claim language.” App. Br. 10
(citing Ex Parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215 (BPAI 2008)). Here, the
Specification provides guidance because the cited portions of the originally
filed Specification relied upon by Appellants state, “the roaming server
210A starts recording the content of Channel 1 and directs the media server
302 to start RTSP streaming of this recorded content.” (Emphasis added).
App. Br. 12 (citing Spec. 13:16–17). Moreover, Appellants contend “the
[claim] limitations which specify that activation of the pause control initiates
recording of a portion of the programming content and causes a media server
in head end equipment to start streaming of the recorded portion” are not
indefinite and entirely consistent with the Specification. App. Br. 12 (citing
Appeal 2012-005472
Application 11/427,879

6
Spec. 13:16–17). Thus, consistent with the originally filed Specification
(Spec. 13:16–17; Fig. 3) and Appellants’ contentions (App. Br. 12), the
claim is interpreted as “wherein activation of the pause control causes
[forwarding of the recorded portion of the programming content from a
roaming server to] a media server in head end equipment [the media server]
to start streaming of the recorded portion of the programming content.”
Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 17, 20, and 23.

Rejection of Claims 1–3, 5–7, and 11–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds that “Ellis discloses that activation of a pause
control (pressing a “Pause” key) causes a media server (distribution
equipment 21) in head end equipment (distribution facility 16) to start
streaming of the recorded portion of the programming content (Paragraph
[0166] figure 2d; content is recorded on remote media server 24 in response
to a user pause control, where the content is transmitted from the distribution
equipment 21 to the remote media server 24).” Ans. 8. Appellants contend
“claim 1 specifies that activation of the pause control causes a media server
in head end equipment to start streaming of a recorded portion of the
programming content.” App. Br. 16. Moreover, Appellants contend:
[P]aragraph 166 of Ellis merely states that the user pressing the
pause key causes the remote media server 24 to begin recording
a program, not that pressing the pause key causes distribution
equipment 21 to start transmitting a program to remote media
server 24. Rather, the remote media server is merely recording
a program which it is already receiving.

App. Br. 16. We agree with the Examiner and disagree with Appellants.
Appeal 2012-005472
Application 11/427,879

7
The cited portion of Ellis relied upon by the Examiner state,
“[p]rocessing circuitry 11 of remote media server 24 … for tuning to or
otherwise selecting programming provided by distribution equipment 21,”
(see Ellis, ¶ 88) teaches or suggests the claimed limitation “media server in
headend equipment.” (Emphasis added). We also note that Ellis states,
“recorded videos may be distributed by distribution equipment 21 to user
television equipment 22 as … an MPEG-2 data stream,” (see Ellis, ¶ 98),
which teaches or suggests the claimed limitation “wherein activation of the
pause control causes a media server in head end equipment to start
streaming of the recorded portion of the programming content.” (Emphasis
added).
Moreover, the cited portions of Ellis relied upon by the Examiner
recite “pressing a ‘PAUSE’ key on remote control 40.” See Ellis, ¶ 166.
Additionally, Ellis states, “recorded videos may be distributed by
distribution equipment 21 to user television equipment 22 as … an MPEG-2
data stream,” (see Ellis, ¶ 98); the programming that occurs after the
“pause” key is pressed is provided from the distribution equipment 21 (see
Ellis, ¶ 166) to the media server 24 (see Ellis, ¶ 88), and then to the user
television equipment 22, which teach or suggest the claimed limitation
“wherein activation of the pause control causes a media server in head end
equipment to start streaming of the recorded portion of the programming
content” (Emphasis added).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 over the combination of Palmer, Ellis, and Fritsch.
Because Appellants have not provided separate arguments against the
Appeal 2012-005472
Application 11/427,879

8
rejections of claims 2, 3, 5–7, and 11–21, these claims fall with claim 1 for
the same reasons set forth above. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Rejection of Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds that “Karaoguz discloses that the user registers
with the system as a roaming user via the device at the remote location.”
Ans. 14. The Examiner also finds that “the current claim language does not
require that the user himself registers for roaming in order to obtain a PIN
access code, independent of the device.” Ans. 30. Appellants contend the
Examiner is incorrect as “Karaoguz authenticates a media peripheral itself,
rather than a user of that media peripheral.” App. Br. 19. We agree with the
Examiner and disagree with Appellants.
We note that Karaoguz states,
[A] native PC from home location 101e in the first media
exchange network may be removed and connected to a third
location 102f in the second media exchange network 102. The
third location 102f in the second media exchange network 102
may be a hotel, which is utilized by a user of the PC while on
vacation, for example. In this regard, whenever the media
peripheral or PC is connected to the media exchange network
102, files may be uploaded and stored, for example, according
to information stated in the media peripheral’s associated media
peripheral profile. In a case where a user may be on vacation
and would like the pictures downloaded from the user’s
current location to their parent’s home, then the media
peripheral profile may contain an entry directing downloads
to their parents media peripheral system.

(Emphasis added). See Karaoguz, ¶ 48. Thus, in Karaoguz, the user
utilizing the PC teaches or suggests the claimed limitation, “wherein the
user registers with the system as a roaming user via the device at the remote
Appeal 2012-005472
Application 11/427,879

9
location.” (Emphasis added). Also, the cited portions of Karaoguz relied
upon by Appellants state, “receiving a request to transfer data to or from a
device that is roaming; authenticating the received request; and routing the
data based on a device profile of the device,” (see Karaoguz, ¶ 14) which
teach or suggest the claimed limitation, “wherein the user registers with the
system as a roaming user via the device at the remote location.” (Emphasis
added).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 4.

Rejection of Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds Allen recites “other types of communication may
interrupt the viewing experience, such as text-based communications” and
“upon detection of an interruption, e.g. phone call, text-based
communication, the ITV system buffers the content allowing the user to not
miss portion[s] of the television broadcast.” Ans. 31. Appellants contend
the Examiner is incorrect as “Allen is describing text information which is
entered by a user of the STB 102, rather than an interrupt indicative of an
incoming communication from a source other than a system user to whom
the interrupt indicator is presented.” App. Br. 20. Also, Appellants contend,
“Allen teaches directly away by characterizing text-based communication as
‘suited to being conducted during display of the television signal 402 …
[and] a text-based chat session may be easily conducted while the television
signal 402 is being displayed on the television 104.’” Id. Moreover,
Appellants contend, “[i]t is important to note that Allen distinguishes
between telephone calls (which do require interruption of television
Appeal 2012-005472
Application 11/427,879

10
viewing) and incoming text-based communications (which do not require
interruption of television viewing).” Reply Br. 6. We agree with the
Examiner and disagree with Appellants.
The cited portions of Allen relied upon by the Examiner state “an
incoming communication request or other interruption” (see Allen, Abst.)
(emphasis added), “a user of a second STB 102b hereinafter referred to as
caller 403, attempts to establish a two-way communication (e.g., audio,
video, or text) with the user 405 of the first STB 102a” (see Allen ¶ 69), and
“upon detecting the request 404, the first STB 102a may begin to
immediately buffer or store the television signal 402 … [and] [t]he buffering
may be automatic, i.e. no user intervention,” (see Allen, ¶ 71). Therefore,
Palmer and Allen teach or suggest the claimed limitations “an incoming
communication from a source other than a system user to whom the
interrupt indicator is presented” and “wherein the interrupt comprises an
interrupt associated with at least one of an email message and an instant
message.” (Emphasis added). Similarly, the cited portions of Palmer relied
upon by the Examiner illustrate an interrupt in the form of an incoming
telephone call. See Palmer, Fig. 4B. Thus, Allen does not teach away from
Palmer.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 8.

Rejection of Claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds that “Nahumi discloses activation of the pause
control causes a media server in the head en[d] equipment to start streaming
of the recorded portion of the programming content to the device (Paragraph
Appeal 2012-005472
Application 11/427,879

11
[0064] figures 3 and 4; in response to a pause command 150, connecting a
multicast live stream to a network PVR for recording and setting a virtual
high priority connection between the user device and the network PVR to
start streaming of content).” Ans. 18. Appellants contend “Nahumi does not
disclose an arrangement in which activation of a pause control causes a
media server in head end equipment to start streaming of the recorded
portion of the programming content to such a device” (App. Br. 22) because
“this stored content is not transmitted from the DSLAM’s buffer to the user
until the user requests to resume the display” (id.). We agree with the
Examiner and disagree with Appellants.
We note the claim broadly recites, “wherein activation of the pause
control causes the media server in the head end equipment to start streaming
of the recorded portion of the programming content to the device” and, the
claim does not recite how much time the streaming takes to start after
activation of the pause command. In addition, the claim does not recite
“without the user requesting to resume the display.” Thus, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Nahumi’s statement, “the user presses the ‘pause’
button on his remote control … [and] [o]nce the user request[s] to resume
the display, he will receive the broadcast from the DSLAM’s buffer” teaches
the claimed limitation “wherein activation of the pause control causes the
media server in the head end equipment to start streaming of the recorded
portion of the programming content to the device.” Ans. 22. In addition, we
also note that Ellis teaches (see Ellis, ¶¶ 88, 98, 166) this limitation for the
reasons stated supra, in the discussion of claim 1.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 23.
Appeal 2012-005472
Application 11/427,879

12
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 17, 20, and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8, 11–21, and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

kis