Ex Parte Copertino et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2018

13165947 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/165,947 06/22/2011
26479 7590
STRAUB & POKOTYLO
788 Shrewsbury A venue
TINTON FALLS, NJ 07724
07/30/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Steven Copertino
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.
TW-43 (TWC 10-19) 4876
EXAMINER
TILAHUN, ALAZAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2018 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 STEVEN COPERTINO, BRENT WILLIAM BROOKS,
CORINNE KERNS LOWRY, JOSHUA CHARLES GOLDSTEIN, NOAH
MITTMAN, ROSALIE EHRLICH, RUSSELL R. ALDERSON, SANJA Y
CHERUBALA, SEAN MACDONALD, and
VIRGINIA WELFORD MIRACLE
Appeal 2017-011240
Application 13/165,947 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Non-Final
Rejection of claims 6-102. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 3.
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1-5, 13, 14, and 16-
23. Ans. 2.
Appeal 2017-011240
Application 13/165,947
BACKGROUND
THE INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to "cable network
systems, and more particularly, to method and apparatus for presenting
social networking content in conjunction with displaying video content."
Spec. ,r 1.
Exemplary independent claim 6 is reproduced below.
6. A method of providing access to social networking
content, comprising:
displaying video content, obtained via a set top box,
corresponding to a video program on a television screen to a user;
displaying social network content including a set of
comments relating to said video program to said user on a
computer screen of a computer, said displaying social network
content being performed while said video program is being
displayed;
prior to displaying social network content, receiving at
said set top box a signal from a remote control indicating a
request for social networking content;
receiving at a network headend, a request for social
network content from said set top box; and
in response to said request for social networking content,
sending a message from the network headend to a social
networking content server, said message providing information
indicating a device to which said set of comments is to be sent,
said device to which said set of comments is to be sent being said
computer.
2
Appeal 2017-011240
Application 13/165,947
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
1. Claims 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(e) as
anticipated over Stinson (US 2012/0174157 Al; published July 5, 2012).
Non-Final Act. 3-9.
2. Claims 6-8 stand alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Stinson. Non-Final Act. 3-9.
3. Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Stinson and Pizzurro (US 2007 /0288978 Al; published
Dec. 13, 2007). Non-Final Act. 11-13.
DISCUSSION
Claim 1 recites "receiving at a network headend, a request for social
network content from said set top box." The Examiner finds "Stinson
discloses 'The user to request the paired MCPS [(media processing content
subsystem)] 125 to provide chat room for the instance of media content 105
on the display device 130, by way of the social information 190
communicated from the XMPP [ ( extensible messaging and presence
protocol)] server 185 (see paragraphs 0080--0083)." Ans. 3--4.
Appellants argue
Claim 6 recites "a request for social network content
from said set top box" that is received "at a network headend".
No such "request . . . from the set top box" exists in the Stinson
reference. The Examiner cites to a "request" from a user of
adjunct device 135 NOT from the MCPS 125 which the
Examiner equates to the set top box. The "user" to which the
Examiner refers is not a STB and the Examiner does not equate
the adjunct device 135 to being the STB. Furthermore the
signaling 190 cited by the Examiner is between the adjunct
device 135 and the data center 165, including the web server 175,
that the Examiner equates to the network headend. The signaling
3
Appeal 2017-011240
Application 13/165,947
190 is NOT between the MCPS 125 which the Examiner equates
to being the STB and the Data center 165 which Examiner
equates to being the network headend.
Reply Br. 5.
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument. A disclosure or
suggestion to communicate social information 190, depicted in Figure 1 of
Stinson, between adjunct device 13 5 and the Data Center 165 (including
XMPP Server), rather than between the MCPS and the XMPP Server
(Stinson ,r 68, Fig. 1 ), would be necessary to satisfy the claimed limitation as
either being anticipated or obvious. However, the Examiner's findings fail
to identify such a teaching or suggestion in Stinson, either alone or in view
of Pizzurro. Moreover, Figure 1 of Stinson, which generally depicts the
communication pathways between the various elements of Stinson' s system,
does not show any communication between MCPS 125 and XMPP Server
185, as would be expected if a request for social network content were to be
received by the network headend (XMPP Server) from the set top box
(MCPS).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e)
and 103(a) rejections of claim 6, and claims 7-10, which depend from claim
6.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 6-10 are reversed.
REVERSED
4