Ex Parte Cassanova

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 11, 2015

11537720 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2015)

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.
11/537,720 10/02/2006 Jeffrey Cassanova 060153 / BLL0393US 1879
36192 7590 09/11/2015
AT&T Legal Department - CC
Attn: Patent Docketing
Room 2A-207
One AT&T Way
Bedminster, NJ 07921
EXAMINER
ALATA, YASSIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/11/2015 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 JEFFREY CASSANOVA
____________

Appeal 2013-007271
Application 11/537,720
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN G. NEW, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER,
and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–3, 5–10, 12–17, 19, 20, 22, and 23,
which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 4, 11, 18,
21, and 24 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2013-007271
Application 11/537,720

2
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to providing communications services to
Internet Protocol-enabled communications devices. See Spec. ¶ 2.
Exemplary independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A method for providing communications services to an
Internet Protocol-enabled device associated with a subscriber,
comprising:
creating an account identifying the subscriber, an Internet
Protocol address associated with the Internet Protocol-enabled
device of the subscriber, and communications services selected
by the subscriber, the Internet Protocol address including a
globally unique identifier of the Internet Protocol-enabled
device appended to a network address of the subscriber,
communications services selectable by the subscriber include
electronic messaging, local video-on-demand, channel-based
content, and Internet-based content including web pages;
provisioning selected communications services for the
subscriber using a single set of user credentials;
delivering content, via a communications services
provider system, to the Internet Protocol-enabled device over a
network based upon the communications service provisioned
for the subscriber, the delivering content including
distinguishing among the Internet Protocol-enabled device and
other Internet Protocol-enabled devices in the account via the
globally unique identifier, and delivering the content to the
Internet Protocol-enabled device distinguished by the globally
unique identifier; and
provisioning another subscriber associated with a
different account to access the content in response to receiving
an approval from the subscriber to provide the content to the
other subscriber;
wherein the subscriber of the channel-based content is a
business enterprise that distributes business-related content to
employees via a dedicated channel provided by the
communications services provider system, and the Internet
Protocol-enabled device of the subscriber is a television.
Appeal 2013-007271
Application 11/537,720

3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 7–10, 14–17, 20, 22, and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liwerant (US 2002/0056123
A1, published May 9, 2002), Rebaud (US 2004/0261093 A1, published Dec.
23, 2004), Choi (US 2004/0037316 A1, published Feb. 26, 2004), Belt (US
2003/0187956 A1, published Oct. 2, 2003), and Loughridge (US
2006/0010468 A1, published Jan 12, 2006). See Final Act. 3–12.
The Examiner rejects claims 5, 6, 12, 13, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liwerant, Rebaud, Choi, Belt,
Loughridge, and Ellis (US 6,774,926 B1, issued Aug. 10, 2004). See Final
Act. 12–13.

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
the applied prior art references do not teach: (1) distinguishing among
Internet Protocol-enabled devices via a globally unique identifier; (2)
associating an Internet Protocol address with an account where destination
addresses are stored in the account; (3) provisioning communications
services using a single set of user credentials; and (4) providing
communications services to an Internet Protocol-enabled device that is a
television. See App. Br. 6–10. We have reviewed the Examiner’s findings
and conclusions in light of Appellant’s contentions, but we are not
persuaded of error.
Claim 1 recites “distinguishing among the Internet Protocol-enabled
device and other Internet Protocol-enabled devices in the account via the
globally unique identifier.” As to this limitation, Appellant contends that the
Appeal 2013-007271
Application 11/537,720

4
Examiner’s proposed combination is improper because “Liwerant does not
distinguish among devices associated on a globally unique identifier of the
device.” App. Br. 8. Appellant’s contention is, however, not responsive to
the Examiner’s findings because the Examiner relies on Choi—not
Liwerant—for teaching the recited limitation. See Final Act. 6; Ans. 4. We
therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
Claim 1 further recites “provisioning selected communications
services for the subscriber using a single set of user credentials.” For this
limitation, the Examiner relies on Belt and explains that it would have been
obvious to combine Liwerant, Rebaud, Choi, and Belt “to allow the user to
access a plurality of service providers without having to re-log on to each
system.” See Final Act. 7. Appellant contends that the Examiner’s proposed
combination is improper because “[i]t is not clear why Liwerant would need
to provide access to a plurality of service providers, when a single service
provider is used in Liwerant.” App. Br. 9. As the Examiner points out,
however, “Liwerant has a messaging service, i.e. video email, Internet
service and videoshare service.” Ans. 5. According to the Examiner, “[i]t
would be nice if the user has as single set of credentials for all of these
services, [l]et alone the services of Rebaud and Choi.” Id. Based on the
record before us, we consider the Examiner’s explanation to be reasonable.
Appellant does not offer any persuasive evidence rebutting the Examiner’s
explanation. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contention.
Claim 1 further recites that “the Internet Protocol-enabled device of
the subscriber is a television.” Appellant contends that the Examiner’s
proposed combination is improper because the devices in Loughridge are
computers. See App. Br. 10. Again, Appellant’s argument is not
Appeal 2013-007271
Application 11/537,720

5
responsive to the Examiner’s findings, however, because the Examiner relies
on Liwerant—not Loughridge—for teaching the recited limitation. See
Final Act. 2; Ans. 6. We consequently affirm the Examiner’s rejection.
Finally, the Examiner relies on Rebaud for teaching “associating the
IP address with the user’s account and wherein destination addresses are
stored in the subscriber account.” Final Act. 5. As to this feature, Appellant
contends that the Examiner’s proposed combination is improper because
“[u]sing IP addresses of devices associated with an account would not be
necessary in Liwerant,” since “Liwerant already employs a method to
control access to content through passwords.” App. Br. 8. The Examiner
explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to
modify Liwerant to include the use of IP addresses to add another layer of
security. See Ans. 4 (“secondary method of authentication”). Based on the
record before us, we consider the Examiner’s explanation to be reasonable.
Appellant does not proffer any persuasive evidence rebutting the Examiner’s
explanation. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contention.
Appellant further contends that “modifying Liwerant as proposed in
the final Office Action results in an elimination of the public distribution of
video, completely contrary to the intended purpose of Liwerant.” App. Br.
9. According to Appellant, Liwerant “promotes widespread access to video,
which would be frustrated if an IP address for each requesting device needed
to be used to control access to the video.” Id. As the Examiner indicates,
however, modifying Liwerant to include the use of IP addresses would not
“result[] in elimination of public distribution of the video unless desired by
the video originator, because he is the one who is giving access privileges.”
Ans. 4. That is, Liwerant already teaches providing a viewer with an
Appeal 2013-007271
Application 11/537,720

6
identifier before delivering content. See id.; App. Br. 9 (citing Liwerant
¶ 6). Appellant does not explain persuasively why adding the use of IP
addresses to Liwerant would be “completely contrary to the intended
purpose of Liwerant,” when Liwerant already uses identifiers to control
video access. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention.

CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, we are unpersuaded of error in the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions as to claim 1. Appellant argues the
patentability of claims 8 and 15 based on the same reasons stated for claim 1
(see App. Br. 10–12), and presents no separate arguments for the remaining
claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1–
3, 5–10, 12–17, 19, 20, 22, and 23.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3, 5–10, 12–17, 19, 20,
22, and 23 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