Ex Parte Chen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 13, 201613115035 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/115,035 05/24/2011 Sherman (Xuemin) Chen BP22406 2650 51472 7590 12/15/2016 GARLICK & MARKISON (BRCM) P.O. BOX 160727 AUSTIN, TX 78716-0727 EXAMINER LIN, JASON K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2425 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/15/2016 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): MMURDOCK@ TEXASPATENTS .COM ghmptocor@texaspatents.com bpierotti @ texaspatents .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHERMAN (XUEMIN) CHEN, DAVID ERICKSON, VLADIMIR SILYAEV, ALAN TRERISE, and MARCUS C. KELLERMAN Appeal 2015-000152 Application 13/115,035 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JOHN F. HORVATH, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the Examiner’ rejection of claims 1—22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2015-000152 Application 13/115,035 SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION The invention is directed to Internet access and the delivery of streamed content to electronic devices. Spec. 1:5—8. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for operating a gateway in a local area network having at least one communications interface and processing circuitry, the method comprising: establishing communications with a plurality of client devices in a local area network; determining that at least one serviced client device of the plurality of client devices in the local area network requires remote hosting of web browsing functionality; establishing communications with at least one remote server in a service provider network to remotely provide hosting of web browsing functionality for the serviced client device in the local area network; receiving first streamed content from the remote server in the service provider network by the gateway in the local area network, the first streamed content comprising images of a web browsing session hosted by the remote server in the service provider network and having a video program associated therewith; receiving second streamed content from the remote server in the service provider network by the gateway in the local area network, the second streamed content comprising the video program associated with the first streamed content; combining the first streamed content with the second streamed content to form merged streamed content by the gateway in the local area network; and transmitting the merged streamed content by the gateway in the local area network to the serviced client device over the local area network. 2 Appeal 2015-000152 Application 13/115,035 REFERENCES Conover US 2003/0014762 A1 Jan. 16, 2003 Avnet US 2003/0018968 A1 Jan. 23, 2003 Sigmon US 2007/0028288 A1 Feb. 1,2007 Bayer US 2007/0157228 A1 July 5, 2007 Rieger US 8,271,034 B2 Sept. 18,2012 REJECTIONS Claims 1 and 7 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 9, and 15 of copending Application No. 13/114,314, in view of Sigmon, Conover, and Rieger. Final Act. 8—14. Claims 1—4, 6—10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sigmon, Conover, and Rieger. Final Act. 14—27. Claims 5 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sigmon, Conover, Rieger, and Avnet. Final Act. 27—28. Claims 13—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bayer, Conover, Avnet, and Rieger. Final Act. 28—37. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ contentions, and adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Final Action and Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We highlight the following for emphasis. 3 Appeal 2015-000152 Application 13/115,035 Provisional Double Patenting Rejections The Examiner provisionally rejected claims 1 and 7 as unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 9, and 15 of U.S. Application No. 13/114,314 in view of Conover and Rieger, on the non-statutory grounds of obviousness-type double patenting. Because the rejection is provisional, we decline to consider its merits. Prior Art Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Claims 1—12 Issue 1: Whether Sigmon teaches away from claim 1. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because Sigmon “teaches away from the elements of claim 1 by describing that a set top box (the communication device 310) does not perform any rendering of content.” App. Br. 13. However, the Examiner relies on Sigmon’s content distribution platform 330 rather than Sigmon’s communication device 310 (i.e., set top box) for rendering content. See Final Act. 14—16; Ans. 34; Sigmon, Fig. 3. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Issue 2: Whether the Examiner erred by combining the teachings of Sigmon and Rieger. Appellants next argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by relying on hindsight because the only suggestion for the proposed modification of Sigmon is Appellants’ own Specification. App. Br. 10. Appellants further argue the Examiner erred because “all of [the] locations described in the Sigmon reference for the content distribution platform 330 are in a service provider network and not in a local area network.” Id. at 15. 4 Appeal 2015-000152 Application 13/115,035 Appellants further argue there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Sigmon and Rieger because Rieger describes client end devices that are “suitable for various high end services and nowhere describes or suggests an end device . . . that would require remote hosting of web browsing functionality.” Id. at 19. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds Sigmon’s content distribution platform is a gateway, (Final Act. 14), and that Sigmon discloses the content distribution platform “may reside at a location separate from the network’s central location.” Ans. 34 (citing Sigmon 120). The Examiner further finds Rieger teaches a gateway that couples client devices in a local area network to a server in a service provider network, and that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sigmon to place the content distribution platform (gateway) in a local area network to allow “greater control and management over dissemination of content to multiple devices in the home.” Final Act. 18—19. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. We are not persuaded that the Examiner impermissibly relied on hindsight to reject claim 1 because the rejection is based on the combined teachings of Sigmon and Rieger rather than Appellants’ own Specification. We are similarly not persuaded that Sigmon, which explicitly teaches the platform may be placed “at a location separate from the network’s central location,” only teaches placing the content distribution platform in a service provider network. Sigmon 120. Finally, we are not persuaded by Appellants contention that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Sigmon and Rieger because Rieger’s high-end client devices do not require web hosting. “Non obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually 5 Appeal 2015-000152 Application 13/115,035 where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner relies on the teachings of Sigmon, rather than Rieger, to motivate the need to provide web hosting services to low-end client devices. See Final Act. 14—16 (citing Sigmon 120). The Examiner relies on Rieger simply to teach using a gateway (e.g., Sigmon’s content rendering platform) to connect client devices in a local area network to a server in a service provider network. Id. at 18—19; Ans. 37—38. Issue 3: Whether Sigmon, as modified by Rieger, would work for its intended purpose. Appellants argue that modifying Sigmon in the manner proposed by the Examiner (i.e., placing the content distribution platform in a local area network) is unreasonable, and would render Sigmon “inoperable for its stated purpose.” App. Br. 15—16; Reply Br. 9-10. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Rather, we agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s finding that placing Sigmon’s content distribution platform in a local area network “only shifts the location of the gateway. I[t] would not change the function of the gateway so significantly that it would no longer be able to process the content prior to being received by the client device.” Ans. 35. We note that Appellants’ argument is based, in part, on a misreading of the Examiner’s proposed modification. Appellants argue the Examiner proposed modifying Sigmon to place the content distribution platform 330 within a communication device 310 in a local area network. See App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 10. The Examiner proposed no such modification. Rather, the Examiner proposed placing Sigmon’s content distribution platform 330 6 Appeal 2015-000152 Application 13/115,035 (gateway) in communication with a plurality of communication devices 310 (client devices) in a local area network as taught by Rieger. See Final Act. 14—15, 18-19; Ans. 39. Issue 4: Whether the combination of Sigmon, Conover, and Rieger teaches or suggests determining that a client device in a local area network requires remote web hosting, a server to provide the remote web hosting, and a gateway receiving first streamed content from the server comprising images of a remotely hosted web browsing session. Claim 1 stands rejected over the combined teachings of Sigmon, Conover, and Rieger. See Final Act. 14—19. The Examiner finds Conover teaches determining that a client device (set-top box) requires remote web hosting, a server (computer web browser servers 228) to provide the remote web hosting, and a gateway (cable modem termination system or CMTS 224) for receiving first streamed content from the server comprising images of the remotely hosted web session. Id. at 17—18 (citing Conover || 8—9, 23, 30, 38, Abstract, Fig. 2). Appellants argue the Examiner erred because: There is no description in the Conover reference of the elements of claim 1 of, “establishing communications with a plurality of client devices in a local area network; determining that at least one serviced client device of the plurality of client devices in the local area network requires remote hosting of web browsing functionality; establishing communications with at least one remote server in a service provider network to remotely provide hosting of web browsing functionality for the serviced client device in the local area network. App. Br. 18. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument, which attacks the individual teachings of Conover, rather than the combined teachings of 7 Appeal 2015-000152 Application 13/115,035 Sigmon, Conover, and Rieger. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. As the Examiner finds, and we agree, “[t]he examiner has not solely relied on Conover ... to teach the entirety of the claimed limitations. . . . rather it is taught by the combination of Sigmon, Conover, and Reiger [sic].” Ans. 36— 37. Issue 5: Whether the Examiner proposes modifying Conover to include the cable television head end in a set-top box. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by allegedly finding “it would be obvious for the head end 12 of the cable television system 10 ... in the Conover reference be included or performed by a set top box in a local area network,” because such a modification would “render[] the Conover reference's teaching unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.” Reply Br. 15. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument because the Examiner did not propose modifying Conover to place head end 12 into set top boxes. Rather, the Examiner proposed modifying Sigmon’ system to include Conover’s web browser servers 228, and modifying Sigmon’s content distribution platform 330 to include the functionality of Conover’s CMTS 224 (i.e., to receive streamed content from web browser servers 228). See Final Act. 17—18. For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as obvious over the combination of Sigmon, Conover, and Rieger, and sustain the Examiner’s rejection. Appellants argue independent claim 7 is patentable over the combination of Sigmon, Conover, and Rieger for the same reasons as claim 1, and do not 8 Appeal 2015-000152 Application 13/115,035 separately argue for the patentability of dependent claims 2—6 or 8—12. See App. Br. 21—22. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2—12 for the same reasons as claim 1. Claims 13—22 Issue 6: Whether claim 13 is patentable over the combination of Bayer, Conover, Avnet, and Rieger. Claim 13 stands rejected over the combination of Bayer, Conover, Avnet, and Rieger. Final Act. 28—35. The Examiner finds Conover teaches client devices (set top boxes) lacking web browser functionality establish communications with a gateway (CMTS 224), transmit browsing directions to the gateway, and receive browsing information from the gateway. Id. at 32. The Examiner further finds Rieger teaches placing a gateway (e.g., Conover’s CMTS 224) in a local area network to connect client devices (e.g., Conover’s set top boxes) to a server in a service provider network. Id. at 34—35. Appellants, referring to their arguments made with respect to claim 1, argue that Conover fails to describe: Client devices establishing communications over a local area network with a gateway for the remote hosting of Internet browsing functionality for the user device or transmitting browsing directions to the gateway or receiving serviced client device display structure instructions from a cloud server via the gateway over the local area network as in claim 13. App. Br. 24. Appellants further argue that Avnet fails to describe “client devices establishing communications over a local area network with a gateway for the remote hosting of Internet browsing functionality for the user device.” Id. at 25. Appellants further argue that although Rieger 9 Appeal 2015-000152 Application 13/115,035 teaches a gateway that connects client devices in a local area network to a server in service provider network, Rieger’s devices are high-end devices that “would [not] require remote hosting of web browsing functionality.” Id. at 25—26. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments, which attack the teachings of Conover, Avnet, and Rieger individually, rather than the combined teachings of Bayer, Conover, Avnet, and Rieger. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. As the Examiner finds, and we agree, the Examiner did not rely on Conover, Avnet, and Rieger to individually teach the entirety of limitations recited in claim 13, but rather relied on the combined teachings of these references to find claim 13 obvious. See Final Act. 28—35; Ans. 40— 43. Issue 7: Whether the Examiner proposes modifying Conover to include a cable television head end in a set-top box. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13 by allegedly finding “it would be obvious for the head end 12 of the cable television system 10 in the Conover reference to be included in a gateway in a local area network,” because such a modification would “render[] the Conover reference’s teaching unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Reply Br. 20. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument because the Examiner did not propose modifying Conover to place the entire head end 12 into set top boxes. Rather, the Examiner proposed modifying Bayer’s end user devices 110 to enable communication with Conover’s CMTS 224 (gateway), and using Conover’s CMTS 224 to connect Bayer’s end user devices 110 in 10 Appeal 2015-000152 Application 13/115,035 a local area network to a server in a service provider network as taught by Rieger. See Final Act. 28—32, 34—35; Ans. 39-43. Issue 8: Whether the Examiner erred by combining the teachings of Bayer, Conover, Avnet, and Rieger. Appellants argue there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Bayer, Conover, Avnet, and Rieger because Rieger describes client end devices that are “suitable for various high end services and nowhere describes or suggests an end device . . . that would require remote hosting of web browsing functionality,” and therefore does not suggest or motivate user devices that request “remote hosting of Internet browsing functionality and establishing] communications over a local area network with a gateway for the remote hosting of Internet browsing functionality for the user device.” Reply Br. 23. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. The Examiner relies on the teachings of Conover, rather than the teachings of Rieger, to motivate the need to provide web hosting services to low-end client devices. See Final Act. 32 (citing Conover || 8—9, 22—23, 30, 38, Abstract, Fig. 2). The Examiner relies on Rieger simply to teach using a gateway (e.g., Conover’s CMTS 224) to connect client devices (e.g., Bayer’s end user devices 110) in a local area network to a server in a service provider network. Id. at 34—35; Ans. 39-43. For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13 as obvious over the combination of Bayer, Conover, Avnet, and Rieger, and sustain the Examiner’s rejection. 11 Appeal 2015-000152 Application 13/115,035 Appellants argue independent claim 18 is patentable over the combination of Bayer, Conover, Avnet, and Rieger for the same reasons as claim 13, and do not separately argue for the patentability of dependent claims 14—17 or 19— 22. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14—22 for the same reasons as claim 13. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 6—10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sigmon, Conover, and Rieger is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sigmon, Conover, Rieger, and Avnet is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 13—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bayer, Conover, Avnet, and Rieger 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 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation