Ex Parte Ashley

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2012

09950484 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ALEXIS ASHLEY
____________________

Appeal 2012-003719
Application 09/950,484
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
9, 11-19, and 21-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2012-003719
Application 09/950,484

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to handling broadcast data
tokens. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative.
1. A data processing apparatus operable in a network including
at least one content source for providing a plurality of content, a
resolution utility for providing content access data relating to
the forthcoming delivery of each of the plurality of content
from the at least one content source, and at least one token
supply source for providing content identifiers for each of the
plurality of content, the apparatus comprising:

a receiver arranged to receive a content identifier from
the at least one token supply source other than said at least one
content source, the content identifier including an address of
said resolution utility; and

a processor coupled with said receiver and configured

to use the address of the resolution utility from
said received content identifier to establish a
communications link with said resolution utility,

to supply the received content identifier thereto,
and

in return, to receive the content access data,

wherein the receiver includes a plurality of channels for
accepting delivery of the plurality of content from the at least
one content source using content access data of each of the
plurality of content.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-9, 11-19, and 21-28 under 35 U.S.C
§ 102(e) based upon the teachings of Wong (US 7,673,315).
Appeal 2012-003719
Application 09/950,484

3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Wong teaches all the elements of Appellant’s
claimed invention, particularly that a token can include program criteria such
as a URL link (Ans. 4). The Examiner also finds Wong teaches scheduling
data is separately defined from a content identifier and is used to access
content from a content source (Ans. 8). Additionally, the Examiner finds
Wong teaches a database is equivalent to a resolution utility as it “maintains
and provides retrieval of content access data in the form of local tuning
space and scheduling data” (Ans. 8-9).
Appellant contends Wong teaches the URL link is information
regarding the identity of a program and not delivery of content as claimed
(App. Br. 11). Appellant also contends Wong does not disclose an
independent resolution utility that supplies content access data and the
content identifier including an address of the resolution utility. Further,
Appellant contends the tokens in Wong are obtained from a server and are
not from a token supply source that provides content identifiers (App. Br.
11-12). Thus, Appellant asserts Wong does not teach a separate content
source, a resolution utility that provides content access data relating to
delivery of the content, and a token supply source that provides content
identifiers (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 3). We agree with Appellant that Wong
does not teach these separate features (see Reply Br. 2-4). We also agree the
database of Wong does read on the claimed resolution utility that provides
content access data relating to delivery of the content (App. Br. 3). That is,
the resolution utility is a separate claim element from that of the token
service system of the entity from which content is being recorded (Reply Br.
2).
Appeal 2012-003719
Application 09/950,484

4
We therefore conclude Wong does not anticipate independent claims
1, 6, and 17 and the dependent claims argued together therewith (App. Br.
10).

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9, 11-19, and 21-28 is reversed.

REVERSED

tkl/peb