Ex Parte Cedervall et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 13, 201613942317 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/942,317 07/15/2013 Mats Cedervall 96750 7590 09/15/2016 Patents on Demand, P,A, 4581 Weston Road, Suite 345 Weston, FL 33331 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. P26280US3 6494 EXAMINER SHEPARD, JUSTINE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2424 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/15/2016 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): docketing 1@patentsondemand.com docketing3@patentsondemand.com docketing.ericsson@thomsonreuters.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MATS CEDERVALL, JAN ERIK LINDQUIST, and ANDREW MALLINSON Appeal2015-004488 Application 13/942,317 Technology Center 2400 Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 23, 24, 27-30, 34, 35, and 38--41. Claims 1-22, 25, 26, 31, 32, 36, 37 have been cancelled. (App. Br. 16-19.) Claim 33 is allowed and claims 42--44 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form, including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. (Final Act. 8.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal2015-004488 Application 13/942,317 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention is directed to IPTV (Internet Protocol Television) session management and, in particular, to handling and invoking applications other than embedded applications that are locally installed in a set top box. (Spec. 1, 11. 4--5, 25-27.) Claims 23 and 24, reproduced below, are representative of the claimed subject matter: 23. A session managing method, comprising: registering, in a registration table, at least one Internet Protocol Television (IPTV)-related application that can be invoked at a set top box present in a home network such that the registration table comprises a respective identifier of the at least one IPTV-related application; detecting an IPTV-related event requiring invocation of an IPTV-related application at the set top box, comprising receiving an unsolicited message from a global network connected to the home network; and selecting, based on the IPTV-related event, an IPTV-related application registered in the registration table to be invoked during an IPTV session, comprising: extracting an application identifier from the unsolicited message; comparing the application identifier with identifiers of IPTV-related applications registered in the registration table; and selecting the IPTV-related application registered in the registration table based on the comparison. 24. The method of claim 23, further comprising invoking the IPTV- related application selected from the registration table. 2 Appeal2015-004488 Application 13/942,317 REJECTIONS Claims 23, 24, 29, 34, 35, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Slothouber (US 2006/0184989 Al; published Aug. 17, 2006) and Plotnick et al. (US 2003/0227567 Al; published Dec. 11, 2003). Claims 27 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Slothouber, Plotnick, and Kwon et al. (US 2008/0111699 Al; published May 15, 2008). Claims 28 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Slothouber, Plotnick, Kwon, and Fan et al. (US 2009/0070663 Al; published Mar. 12, 2009). Claims 30 and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Slothouber, Plotnick, and Chauvel et al. (US 6,369,855 Bl; issued Apr. 9, 2002). ANALYSIS After considering each of Appellants' arguments, we agree with the Examiner. We refer to and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions as set forth in the Examiner's Answer and in the action from which this appeal was taken. (Ans. 9-14; Final Act. 2-9.) Our discussions will be limited to the following points of emphasis. Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Slothouber and Plotnick teaches or suggests "registering, in a registration table, at least one Internet Protocol Television (IPTV)-related application that can be invoked at a set top box" and "selecting, based on the IPTV- 3 Appeal2015-004488 Application 13/942,317 related event, an IPTV-related application registered in the registration table to be invoked," as recited in independent claim 23 and commensurately recited in independent claim 34? Appellants contend the applications in Plotnick are already invoked and, therefore, are not applications that "can be invoked" or are "to be invoked." (App. Br. 10.) According to Appellants, "launching, or invoking, an application is not the same as changing focus between already launched or invoked applications." (App. Br. 9.) We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Generally, unless an applicant has clearly set forth a special definition of a disputed claim term in the specification, we give the term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane). Appellants do not explicitly define the term "invoke" in the Specification, nor do Appellants provide a definition in the Briefs. A general purpose dictionary defines "invoke" as "to cause, call forth, or bring about." WEBSTER'S UNIVERSAL COLLEGE DICTIONARY 432 (1997). We agree with the Examiner that Plotnick's changing focus from one application to another teaches or suggests invoking the application. (See Ans. 10.) As the Examiner finds, in Plotnick, applications that do not have focus continue to run in the background, but do not have access to all system resources. (Ans. 11, citing Plotnick i-f 26.) When the application gains focus, system resources will be given to the application. (Plotnick i-f 27; see also Ans. 11.) We agree with the Examiner that such disclosure teaches or suggests an "application that can be invoked" and an application "to be invoked," as recited in the claims. 4 Appeal2015-004488 Application 13/942,317 Moreover, we note Appellants' arguments that Plotnick's applications are already invoked and, therefore, cannot be invoked, are inconsistent with Appellants' Specification, which describes "[t]he registration table ... provid[ es] a complete, relevant information source listing all active and inactive applications ... that can be invoked in response to the detected IPTV-related event." (Spec. 8, 11. 23-25, emphasis added.) In other words, Appellants' Specification describes that active applications can be invoked. Finally, in the Reply Brief, Appellants state "[a]bove and beyond the items discussed in the Appeal Brief, other differences between claim 23 and the cited references, Slothouber and Plotnick, will now be described." (Reply Br. 2-3.) We find Appellants' ensuing arguments not based on any new grounds of rejection in the Examiner's Answer. As a result, Appellants have waived such untimely argument because Appellants have not shown any good cause for the belated presentation. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (Unless good cause is shown, the Board is not required to address arguments in the Reply Brief that could have been presented in the Appeal Brief.). Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 23 and 34, and dependent claims 27, 28, 30, 38, 39, and 41, which were not separately argued. Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Slothouber and Plotnick teaches or suggests "invoking the IPTV-related application selected from the registration table," as recited in dependent claim 24 and similarly recited in dependent claims 29, 35, and 40? 5 Appeal2015-004488 Application 13/942,317 Appellants contend Plotnick does not teach or suggest a registration table. (App. Br. 13). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree with the Examiner that Plotnick' s storing a list of application programs registered with the application launcher teaches or suggests a registration table. (See Ans. 13; Plotnick i-f 24.) Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 24, 29, 35, and 40. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 23, 24, 27-30, 34, 35, and 38--41 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation