Ex Parte Chu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2013

11771480 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ANDREW CHU
____________________

Appeal 2011-013188
Application 11/771,480
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES,
and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-013188
Application 11/771,480

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a system and method for remote
participation over a wireless network of an event by a plurality of users
through a proxy server; wherein, the users are able to control cameras and to
participate in a virtual community during the event (Abstract).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method comprising:

receiving, at a proxy server, certification information
corresponding to a ticket purchased for an event, wherein the
ticket permits control, via a mobile device over a wireless
network, of a remote camera to view an event from a plurality
of viewing perspectives; and

using the proxy server to maintain a plurality of
communication sessions with the mobile device over the
wireless network, wherein the communication sessions
correspond to the event and provide participation in a virtual
community to experience the event.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Lohman US 2005/0289627 Al Dec. 29, 2005
Appeal 2011-013188
Application 11/771,480

3
Brattesani US 2006/0294012 Al Dec. 28, 2006
Rao US 2006/0217113 Al Sep. 28, 2006
Mills US 2007/0006277 A1 Jan. 04, 2007
Mottur US 7,382,397 B2 Jun. 03, 2008
(filed Nov. 21, 2002)

Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Brattesani in view of Mottur and Lohman.
Claims 5, 14, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brattesani in view of Mottur, Lohman, Mills, and Rao.

II. ISSUES
The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that the combination of Brattesani, Mottur, and Lohman teaches
or would have suggested:
1. “using the proxy server to maintain a plurality of communication
sessions with the mobile device over the wireless network, wherein the
communication sessions correspond to the event and provide participation in
a virtual community to experience the event” (claim 1, emphasis added); and
2. “transmitting an application to the mobile device for supporting
the plurality of communication sessions” (claim 2, emphasis added).

Appeal 2011-013188
Application 11/771,480

4
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Brattesani
1. Brattesani discloses a system including one or more cameras 10
installed in a facility 12 to provide a video and audio feed to a remote user
(virtual guest) who cannot attend an event; wherein, the virtual guest at a
client device 20 remotely controls the position and zoom of video cameras
over the Internet 16 through a server 22 that maintains the communication
between any client device 20 and any camera 10 (Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0021]-[0026]
and [0028]).
Mottur
2. Mottur discloses a system and method that enables a user to
select one of controlled region devices (cameras) and to provide variable
speed control commands over a network through a web server 64 to the
selected controlled region device (Abstract). The system establishes at least
one queue for administering control between the network users and the
cameras; wherein, a network of users can request control of a camera (col. 2,
ll. 52-62).
3. The web server 64 provides user 48 and/or user device 62 with
an applet or another program 66 configured for the user’s device 62 to
operate and control the cameras (col. 16, ll. 26-29).
Lohman
4. Lohman discloses a community cable system having a server
that provides a virtual community cable service which enables each
subscriber to communicate with other subscribers over its network while
Appeal 2011-013188
Application 11/771,480

5
watching the same event; wherein, each subscriber controls the camera feed
which is sent to the other subscribers (Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0010] and [0021]).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-19
Appellant contends that “nowhere in the entire disclosure of the
Lohman reference is there a teaching or even a suggestion that the virtual
audience provided in the standard television system is even capable of
maintaining a plurality of communication sessions with a mobile device
over a wireless network, wherein the communication sessions correspond
to an event and provide participation in a virtual community” (App. Br.
7). Appellant argues that “the applied references provide no reason why one
having ordinary skill in the art would modify the system of Brattesani …
[with] Mottur” (id.). Appellant contends further that “the Examiner’s
rationale for such a combination appears to be unnecessary as the system of
Brattesani already provides for multiple guests to view a video feed” (App.
Br. 8).
However, the Examiner finds that “Brattesani and Mottur sufficiently
disclose a plurality of communication sessions with a mobile device over a
wireless network” (Ans. 19). The Examiner notes that he relies upon
Lohman to teach “the participation in a virtual community to experience the
event” (Ans. 19).
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Claim 1 does not place any limitation on what “proxy server” means,
includes, or represents. Thus, we give “using the proxy server to maintain a
Appeal 2011-013188
Application 11/771,480

6
plurality of communication sessions with the mobile device over the
wireless network” its broadest reasonable interpretation as any server that
maintains communication with any device that is mobile over a wireless
network, as consistent with the Specification and claim 1.
Brattesani discloses a system having a server that enables the remote
control of cameras over the Internet by a plurality of virtual guests at client
devices who cannot attend an event (FF 1). We find that the Internet
comprises a wireless network and the client device comprises a device that
communicates with the server over the wireless network. That is, we find
that Brattesani’s system and method comprises “using the proxy server to
maintain a plurality of communication sessions with the mobile device over
the wireless network, wherein the communication sessions correspond to the
event” (claim 1).
In addition, Mottur discloses a system and method that enables a user
to select and control one of controlled region devices (cameras) using
variable speed control commands over a network through a web server to the
selected controlled region device (FF 2). We find that web server represents
a server that communicates between user devices and the cameras controlled
over a network. In particular, we find that Mottur’s system comprises
“using the proxy server to maintain a plurality of communication sessions
with the mobile device over the wireless network” (claim 1).
Furthermore, Lohman discloses a community cable system having a
server that provides a virtual community cable service such that a subscriber
may communicate with other subscribers while watching an event; wherein,
each subscriber controls a camera the transmits a video of the subscriber to
the other subscribers (FF 4). We find that virtual community cable service
Appeal 2011-013188
Application 11/771,480

7
provides a virtual community of subscribers viewing an event; wherein, the
subscribers are in communication with the server. Specifically, we find that
Lohman’s system comprises “using the proxy server to maintain a plurality
of communication sessions with the [subscriber] over the wireless network,
wherein the communication sessions correspond to the event and provide
participation in a virtual community to experience the event” (claim 1).
We find that the combination of Brattesani, Mottur, and Lohman at
least suggests providing “using the proxy server to maintain a plurality of
communication sessions with the mobile device over the wireless network,
wherein the communication sessions correspond to the event and provide
participation in a virtual community to experience the event,” as specifically
required by claim 1.
We also agree with the Examiner’s explicit motivation that combining
the references would be obvious “because [each] prior art [reference is] …
directed towards methods/systems used for capturing and distributing
streams of media information to users that are remote” (Ans. 6) and “the
experience of watching an event with a community of people as opposed to
watching it alone enhances the experience of the event” (Ans. 6-7). The
Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007).
Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that the combination
of Brattesani’s system having a server that enables the remote control of
cameras over the Internet by a plurality of virtual guests at client devices
who cannot attend an event with the web server that grants camera control to
Appeal 2011-013188
Application 11/771,480

8
each client device, as disclosed in Mottur, and the virtual community service
of Lohman produces a system having a proxy server that maintains
communication sessions with a mobile device over a wireless network for
experiencing an event in a virtual community which would be obvious (Ans.
6-7; FF 1, 2, and 4).
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Brattesani in view
of Mottur and Lohman. Further, independent claims 10 and 18 having
similar claim language and claims 3, 4, 6-9, 11-13, 15-17, and 19 (depending
from claims 1, 10, and 18), which have not been argued separately, fall with
claim 1.
Claim 2
Appellant contends that “nowhere in the entire disclosure of the
Mottur reference is there a teaching of an application transmitted to the
user device 62 for supporting a plurality of communication sessions” (App.
Br. 9).
However, the Examiner finds that “Mottur also teaches that an applet
or another program can be configured to the user device to operate according
to the disclosed methods and systems” (Ans. 20).
As noted supra, Mottur discloses a system and method that enable a
user to select and control one of a plurality of cameras; wherein, the system
downloads an applet or another software program to the user’s device that is
configured for operating and controlling the cameras (FF 2 and 3). We find
that download of software to be a transmission of an application to the
mobile device which supports the plurality of communication sessions. That
is, we find that Mottur’s system and method includes “transmitting an
Appeal 2011-013188
Application 11/771,480

9
application to the mobile device for supporting the plurality of
communication sessions” (claim 2).
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Brattesani in view
of Mottur and Lohman.
Claims 5, 14, and 20
Appellant argues that claims 5, 14, and 20 are patentable over the
cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 1 and
“Mills and Rao fail to at least remedy the above discussed deficiencies of
Brattesani, Mottur, and Lohman” (App. Br. 10).
As noted supra, however, we find that Brattesani, Mottur, and
Lohman at least suggest all the features of claim 1. We, therefore, affirm
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Brattesani in view of Mottur, Lohman, Mills, and Rao for the same reasons
expressed with respect to parent claims 1, 10, and 18, supra.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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

peb