Ex Parte Agnihotri et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 27, 201612982463 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/982,463 12/30/2010 51518 7590 MA YER & WILLIAMS PC 928 Mountain A venue Second Floor Mountainside, NJ 07092 09/29/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Davender Agnihotri 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 201003439.02 8408 EXAMINER BAIG, SAHARA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2424 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/29/2016 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): docket@mwpatentlaw.com mwolf@mwpatentlaw.com kwilliams@mwpatentlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DA VENDER AGNIHOTRI, LING JUN WONG, and TRUE XIONG Appeal2015-006904 Application 12/982,463 Technology Center 2400 Before MARC S. HOFF, DAVID C. McKONE, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-24, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. See App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal2015-006904 Application 12/982,463 THE INVENTION The invention relates to the use of a second display device with a network-enabled television, such as an Internet Protocol TV ("IPTV"). Spec., Abstract. A user can register and manage an IPTV device from the second display device. Id. The second display device can be a smart phone, a laptop computer, a desktop PC, or a tablet PC. Id. According to the Specification, In one example of a method of operation, a user logs onto a registration portal using an application on the second display. If the user lacks a user account with the registration portal, they may be prompted to create one. After the user logs into the registration portal, the user is prompted to add the IPTV' s registration code or other identifiable codes, such as the MAC address. The second display may communicate with the registration portal to register the device under the user account if the device is not previously registered and is a valid IPTV device in the system. Upon successful registration, the second display may automatically select the device for browsing and content selection. Id. i-f 4. Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows: 1. A method of registering a content playback device using a second display, comprising: establishing a session between a second display and a first server, the session associated with a user account; on the second display, receiving registration information about a content playback device to be registered; and using the second display, transmitting the registration information from the second display to the first server and sending a signal from the second display to cause transmission of an authentication credential associated with the content playback device to the first server through a proxy server, wherein the content playback device becomes registered with the user account. 2 Appeal2015-006904 Application 12/982,463 THE REFERENCES and REJECTION Claims 1-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yin (US 2010/0162294 Al, published June 24, 2010) and Donlan (US 6,952,836B1, issued Oct. 4, 2005). See Final Act. 3-8. ANALYSIS SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE PRIOR ART Yin describes techniques for digital video recorder ("DVR") interface provisioning ("DIP"). Yin, Abstract. In particular, Yin describes using DIP systems to register a mobile and/or remote device, such as a mobile phone, with a DVR system to allow for remote manipulation of video recording schedules and other DVR features. Id. i-f 8. In one example, a set-top box ("STB") is linked with a user's service account and a personal access code ("PAC") is generated for the STB when the user first registers an association with a DVR service. Id. i-f 10. A Mobile Identification Number ("MIN") or a Mobile Device Number ("MDN") is associated with the user's mobile device. Id. Provisioning of the mobile device can take place using a TV application with a TV interface. Id. i-f 11. The TV application prompts the user to enter the MDN, the PAC is presented to the user on the TV screen, and the user enters the PAC on the mobile device. Id. In another example, after the STB is registered, a PAC can be sent from the DIP system to the mobile device via an SMS text message. Id. i-f 12. The MDN/PAC pair can then be sent to the DIP system server for activation. Id. Donlan describes provisioning of an interactive television ("ITV") connected to an ITV service distribution network. Donlan, 1: 8-13. According to Donlan: 3 Appeal2015-006904 Application 12/982,463 In general, "provisioning" is the addition of a subscriber (e.g., a subscriber terminal device and/or network component) to, deletion of a subscriber from, or modification of a subscriber's services provided by a network, system, or other type of infrastructure providing entitled services. Provisioning permits the pertinent architecture to recognize and/or communicate with the subscriber. Id. at 1 :23-30. REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-24 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The Examiner rejects independent claims 1, 13, 14, and 24 together, making findings that apply to each of these claims. Final Act. 3. We discuss the rejection with particular reference to claim 1. The Examiner finds that Yin teaches "establishing a session between a second display and a first server, the session associated with a user account," as recited in claim 1. Id. The Examiner points to Figure 1 of Yin. Id. Figure 1 is a block diagram of the data flow among components of a DIP system. Yin i-f 2. In Figure 1, mobile device 101 is coupled to wireless servers 110 via HTTP link 105. Wireless servers 110 are, in tum, coupled to media delivery servers 125, which are coupled to STB 150, which ultimately is coupled to display (TV) 155. Specifically, the Examiner points to HTTP link 105 as evidence that Yin teaches "establishing a session between a second display and a first server, the session associated with a user account." Final Act. 3. From this, we conclude that the Examiner identifies mobile device 101 as the "second display" and wireless servers 110 as the "first server." The Examiner further finds that Yin teaches "on the second display, receiving registration information about a content playback device to be 4 Appeal2015-006904 Application 12/982,463 registered." Final Act. 3. Although the Examiner cites to paragraphs 9-11 of Yin, the Examiner does not identify with specificity what information corresponds to the recited "registration information about a content playback device to be registered." The Examiner also finds that Yin teaches "using the second display device, ... sending a signal from the second display to cause transmission of an authentication credential associated with the content playback device to the first server through a proxy server," as recited in claim 1. Id. Here, the Examiner references an encrypted MDN/P AC pair that Yin describes as being sent to a DIP system server for activation of the mobile device. Id. (citing Yin i-f 12). The Final Action does not identify a proxy server in Yin with specificity. Nevertheless, in the Answer, the Examiner finds that wireless servers 110, shown in Figure 1 of Yin, correspond to the proxy server of claim 1. Ans. 8. 1 The Examiner notes that Yin does not teach "using the second display, transmitting the registration information from the second display to the first server" and "wherein the content playback device becomes registered with the user account," as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3--4. Nevertheless, the Examiner finds these teachings in Donlan. Id. at 4. The Examiner finds that "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the 1 We note that this creates tension with our conclusion that the Examiner has identified wireless servers 110 as the "first server" of claim 1. It is possible that the Examiner identified media delivery servers 125 as the "first server," with a session established between it and mobile device 101 via wireless servers 110 (playing the role of the recited "proxy server"). Nevertheless, that position would be in tension with the Examiner's finding (Final Act. 4) that Yin's media delivery servers 125 correspond to the "second server" recited in claim 2. 5 Appeal2015-006904 Application 12/982,463 teachings of Yin and Donlan to permit the pertinent architecture to recognize and/or communicate with the subscriber." Id. Appellants argue claims 1 and 14 together. App. Br. 4. Appellants first note that Yin teaches associating the MDN and PAC to register a cellular phone to control a STB (rather than registering a STB using a cellular phone). App. Br. 5. We agree that the disclosure in Yin cited by the Examiner teaches registering a mobile device using an already registered STB, rather than transmitting registration information about the STB to a server. Yin i-fi-1 8 ("In one implementation, DIP systems may be employed to register one or more mobile and/or remote devices (e.g., mobile phones) with DVR systems."), 12 ("After an STB is registered, a PAC may be sent to the user's mobile device via an SMS text message."). Thus, we agree with Appellants' characterization of Yin and also with the Examiner's finding that Yin does not teach "using the second display, transmitting the registration information from the second display to the first server." As to Donlan, Appellants contends that it does not teach "using the second display, transmitting the registration information from the second display to the first server," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. at 5-6. According to Appellants, [t]he registration of a client device in Donlan is not provided by a second display-rather, it is provided by the same device to be registered. . . . A set top box does become authorized within the service server infrastructure environment, true, but it appears to be doing so without use of another device. Id. at 6. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown that Donlan teaches using a second display device to transmit registration information about a separate content playback device to a first server. 6 Appeal2015-006904 Application 12/982,463 In the Answer, the Examiner submits that the primary reference of Yin already discloses sending registration information from the secondary device to the server when it teaches the steps of using PAC and MDN in provisioning and registering a digital video recorder interface provisioning (DIP). Donlan was being used to explicitly show the registration step (Figure 9). Ans. 8-9. Appellants contend that the Examiner has changed the rejection. Reply 5. According to Appellants, they are not claiming registration per se, but are claiming a particular way of registering a content playback device within the context of a second display. Id. Appellants further argue that, when Yin's PAC and MDN are sent, the STB is already registered. Id. We agree with Appellants. As noted above, the Final Action does not identify with specificity what in Yin constitutes registration information. Similarly, in the Answer, the Examiner does not state with specificity what disclosure in Yin teaches the mobile device (the "second display") transmitting registration information about the STB (the "content playback device") from the mobile device to a first server. Nevertheless, to the extent that the Examiner considers the PAC and MDN information described by Yin to be registration information, the portions of Yin cited by the Examiner (paragraphs 9-12) describe transmission of this information (which the Examiner also equates to "authentication credential[ s ]") after the STB has been registered. This description in Yin does not teach the mobile device transmitting registration information "about a content playback device" (the STB) to a first server. Thus, we disagree with the Examiner's finding that Yin teaches "using the second display, transmitting the registration information from the second display to the first server," as recited in claim 1. 7 Appeal2015-006904 Application 12/982,463 Appellants have persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 14. Claim 13 recites a computer-readable medium with instructions for implementing the method of claim 1. Claim 24 recites a computer-readable medium with instructions for implementing the method of claim 14. For the same reasons given for claims 1 and 14, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 13 and 24. Claims 2-12 depend from claim 1. Claims 15-23 depend from claim 14. We have reviewed the Examiner's findings as to these dependent claims and see no finding that would remedy the deficiency noted above as to the rejection of claims 1 and 14. Accordingly, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2-12 and 15-23. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-24 is reversed. REVERSED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation