Ex Parte Chaudhry et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2017

11938570 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2017)

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.
11/938,570 11/12/2007 Kapil Chaudhry DTV207113 4252
141451 7590
AT&T Legal Dept. - [HDP]
Attention: Patent Docketing, Room 2A-207
One AT&T Way
Bedminster, NJ 07921
EXAMINER
TILAHUN, ALAZAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2017 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 KAPIL CHAUDHRY, ALISTAIR E. JEFFS,
JENNIFER S. STAGGS, MATHEW J. THOMPSON,
TOM Y. LIANG, JAMES R. BUTTERWORTH,
GILBERT ZALDIVAR, THAI LAM,
and AMY K. TSAO
Appeal 2017-005501
Application 11/938,570
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, LARRY J. HUME, and BARBARA A. BENOIT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—8 and 10-31. Claim 9 was canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 In a prior Decision (Appeal Number 2013-002204, decided April 16, 2015,
hereafter “Prior Decision”), we affirmed the Examiner’s rejections of claims
1—14, and 16—28, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Heilbron and Radom; claim
15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Heilbron, Radom and Patzchke; and
claims 29-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Heilbron, Radom, and Danker.
Appeal 2017-005501
Application 11/938,570
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to activating a user
device or communication within a network (Spec. 11).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method of activating a user device comprising:
activating a subscriber activation client application in a user device by
tuning to a channel of the user device;
in response to activating, forming a secure connection from the user
device to a subscriber activation system using the subscriber activation
client;
in response to activating, displaying prompts for entering an ordering
identifier;
entering the ordering identifier into the user device using a user
interface;
communicating the ordering identifier and a receiver identifier or
access card identifier from the user device to the subscriber activation
system through the secure connection;
verifying the ordering identifier at a billing module;
generating an activation signal in response to the ordering identifier,
said activation signal being based on the receiver identifier or the access
card identifier; and
communicating the activation signal to the user device to activate the
user device to receive programming from a head end.
2
Appeal 2017-005501
Application 11/938,570
C. REJECTIONS
Claims 1—8, 10-14, and 16—28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heilbron (WO 2007/071003 Al;
published June 28, 2007) and LaRocca et al. (US 2002/0023268 Al;
published Feb. 21, 2002).
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Heilbron, LaRocca, and Patzschke et al. (US
2006/0034185 Al; published Feb. 16, 2006).
Claims 29-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Heilbron, LaRocca, and Danker (US 2005/0210510 Al;
published Sept. 22, 2005).
II. ISSUES
The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Heilbron and LaRocca, teaches or would have
suggested:
1) “activating” a user device “by tuning to a channel of the user
device,” and “in response to activating,” ‘ forming a secure connection from
the user device to a subscriber activation system” and “displaying prompts
for entering an ordering identifier;” and
2) “generating an activation signal in response to the ordering
identifier’'' to “activate the user device to receive programming from a head
end” (claim 1, emphasis added).
3
Appeal 2017-005501
Application 11/938,570
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Heilbron
1. Heilbron is directed to implementation of Interactive Television
(iTV) applications, wherein tuning to a specific channel would trigger
downloading or activation of an associated application, and upon activation
of the application, a menu is presented to the viewer enabling the view to
choose particular content (p. 1,1. 31— p. 2,1. 4). A viewer logs into a
dedicated portion of the content provider web site by providing a user name
and password combination that was assigned to or created by the viewer (p.
18,11. 2—5). The selection screen solicits the viewer to enter an identifier,
such as an identifier of the subscriber premises device (MAC address, an IP
address, a device identifier or the like) or an identifier associated with the
viewer subscription (such as a telephone number, a customer number, an
account number and the like)(p. 20,11. 19—24).
LaRocca
2. LaRocca discloses providing subscription-on-demand services
for programs within an interactive information distribution system (Abst.),
wherein a terminal sends its assigned terminal identification (TID) number
and defined personal identification number (PIN) for the subscriber
household account to the service provider equipment (f 39). A video
session manager validates the PIN and TID authorization by comparing the
number to stored numbers, and if the TID and PIN are found to be valid, the
video session manager sends a menu applet to the terminal that will permit
access to additional system programming (f 40).
4
Appeal 2017-005501
Application 11/938,570
IV. ANALYSIS
As to claim 1, although Appellants concede “Heilbron discloses
tuning to a specific channel triggers activation of an application,” Appellants
contend Heilbron does not disclose as claimed the limitations of “in response
to activating a subscriber activation client application in a user device by
tuning to a channel of the user device, forming a secure connection and
displaying prompts for entering an ordering identifier” (App. Br. 7—8).
According to Appellants, “the tasks performed to log in to the website are
not performed in response to activating a subscriber activation client
application in a user device by tuning to a channel of the user device” (id.).
That is, “[sjince the selection screen 202 is provided to the view once the
viewer accessed the content provider web site 142,” the selection screen 202
“is not provided in response to activating a subscriber activating client
application in a user device by tuning to a channel of the user device.” Id.
Appellants further contend “LaRocca does not make up for the above-
stated deficiencies of Heilbron” (id. 9). Although “the Examiner broadly
interprets the claimed phrase of ‘generating an activation signal’ as
‘determine subscription authorization,” Appellants contend “an activation
signal is clearly different than determining subscription authorization” (id.
9-10). According to Appellants, “[t]he claimed activation signal is (i)
generated in response to the ordering identifier entered . . ., and (ii)
communicated to the user device . . . .” (id.).
Further, Appellants contend “LaRocca does not disclose generating an
actuation signal in response to the TID and/or the PIN,” because LaRocca’s
TID “is a receiver identifier” while LaRocca’s PIN “is a personal
identification number, not an ordering identifier” (id. 11).
5
Appeal 2017-005501
Application 11/938,570
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and evidence
presented. However, we find no error with the Examiner’s underlying
factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness of claim 1 over
Heilbron and LaRocca.
As an initial matter of claim construction, we give the claims their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In
re Morris, 111 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In view of the broadest,
reasonable interpretation of the claims, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’
contention that Heilbron’s selection screen 202 is not provided “in response
to activating” a subscriber activation client application “by tuning to a
channel of the user device” because it is provided to the view “once the
viewer accessed the content provider web site 142” (App. Br. 7—8). In
particular, we note that claim 1 does not preclude the provision of a selection
screen once the view has accessed the content provider web site, as long as
the selection screen is provided also in response to activating an application
in a user device by tuning to a channel of the device (see claim 1).
As Appellants concede, “Heilbron discloses tuning to a specific
channel triggers activation of an application” (App. Br. 7; FF 1). Further, as
the Examiner finds, “once the application is activated, a secure connection
from the viewer device to a subscriber activation system occurs by means of
user name and password,” and “once the viewer is able to log on using user
name and password, a selection screen 202a prompt viewer to enter an
identifier” (Ans. 4; FF 1). That is, Heilbon discloses that the user logs into a
dedicated portion of the content provider web site by providing a user name
and password combination and the selection screen solicits the user to enter
an identifier after (i.e., in response to) activation of an associated application
6
Appeal 2017-005501
Application 11/938,570
by tuning to a specific channel (id. ). In other words, in Heilbron, the user is
able to log on and enter an identifier after the activation of the application
first occurring. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s reliance on Heilbron to
teach or at least suggest “in response” to activating, “forming a secure
connection from the user device to a subscriber activation system” and
“displaying prompts for entering an ordering identifier” (claim 1).
We also are not persuaded that the Examiner errs in relying on
LaRocca for teaching or at least suggesting “generating an activation signal
in response to the order identifier” (Ans. 5). Here, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that, in LaRocca, the video session manager validates
the identification PIN and TID by comparing the numbers to stored
numbers, and if the TID and PIN are found to be valid, access to additional
system programming is permitted (FF 2). That is, LaRocca discloses
communicating an identifier such as a TID or PIN, wherein the user device
is activated to receive programming from a head end in response (id.).
As Appellants contend, “[t]he claimed activation signal is
(i) generated in response to the ordering identifier entered . . ., and
(ii) communicated to the user device . . . (App. Br. 10). Here, we are
unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that LaRocca teaches or at
least suggests generating an activation signal communicated to the user
device to receive programming from a head end in response to receipt of an
identifier.
Furthermore, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ contention that
“LaRocca does not disclose generating an actuation signal in response to the
TID and/or the PIN,” because LaRocca’s TID “is a receiver identifier” while
LaRocca’s PIN “is a personal identification number, not an ordering
7
Appeal 2017-005501
Application 11/938,570
identifier” (App. Br. 11). That is, given the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claims, we conclude “ordering identifier” comprises any
identifier related with the ordering of the product or service. Here, we find
no error with the Examiner’s finding that LaRocca at least suggests using an
identifier to “identify whether a subscriber terminal is permitted access to
the system” and then “authorizing an order” related to the user/user terminal
(Ans. 6).
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1, and of claims 2—8, 10—14, and 16—18, depending therefrom but not
argued separately (App. Br. 12), over Heilbron and LaRocca.
As for independent claims 19 and 25, Appellants merely recite the
claim language and contend that the limitations of claim 1 discussed above
“are similarly recited” in claims 19 and 25 (App. Br. 13—114). On this
record, we also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19 and 25, and of
claims 20—24, and 26—28, respectively depending therefrom but not argued
separately {id.), over Heilbron and LaRocca.
As for claims 15, and 29—31, Appellants merely claim Patzschke and
Danker do not “make up for the deficiencies of Heilbron and LaRocca” with
respect to claims 1, and 25, respectively (App. Br. 15). However, as
discussed above, we find no deficiencies with respect to the Examiner’s
reliance on Heilbron and LaRocca. Accordingly, we also find no error with
the Examiner’s rejections of claim 15 over Heilbron, LaRocca, and
Patzschke; and of claims 29-31 over Heilbron, LaRocca, and Danker.
8
Appeal 2017-005501
Application 11/938,570
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—8 and 10—31 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
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). See 37
C.F.R. §41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
9