Ex Parte Deng et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 24, 201713104457 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2017) 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. 13/104,457 05/10/2011 Jing Deng 7114-95658-US 1258 37123 7590 02/24/2017 FITCH EVEN TAB IN & FLANNERY, LLP 120 SOUTH LASALLE STREET SUITE 1600 CHICAGO, IL 60603-3406 EXAMINER RECEK, JASON D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2458 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/24/2017 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 JING DENG, MAX WU, RAJESH RAO, FABIO HASHIMOTO, and KENNETH WESTFIELD Appeal 2016-005390 Application 13/104,457 Technology Center 2400 Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, KEVIN C. TROCK, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20. App. Br. 9.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellants’ arguments in their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective details: the Final Action mailed May 1, 2015 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed October 5, 2015 (“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 2, 2016 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed April 29, 2016 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2016-005390 Application 13/104,457 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants describe the present invention as follows: A method and system are provided for simultaneously coupling to a plurality of client applications, receiving a first playback request from a first client application of the plurality of client applications, the first playback request being implemented in a first application specific protocol of the first client application, and a second playback request from a second client application of the plurality of client applications, the second playback request being implemented in a second application specific protocol of the second client application, wherein the first application specific protocol is different from the second application specific protocol and executing the first playback request and the second playback request by one or more players implemented in a single protocol. Abstract. Independent claim 1, reproduced below with added emphasis, is illustrative of the appealed claims: 1. A method comprising: simultaneously coupling to a plurality of client applications on a processer-based device; combining the input in a common gateway server; receiving a first playback request from a first client application of the plurality of client applications, the first playback request being implemented in a first application specific protocol of the first client application, and a second playback request from a second client application of the plurality of client applications, the second playback request being implemented in a second application specific protocol of the second client application, wherein the first application specific protocol is different from the second application specific protocol; and executing, on the processor-based device, the first playback request and the second playback request by one or more players implemented in a single protocol; 2 Appeal 2016-005390 Application 13/104,457 wherein the processor-based device comprises a media player device for playing at least one of video and audio to a user in response to a playback request; wherein the first client application and the second client application are clients to a media manager running on the processor-based device in a client-server based architecture; wherein the media manager, the first client application, and the second client application are each running on the media player device; and wherein each of the plurality of client applications is associated with one or more networking-based features provided to the user at the media player device. Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Yoneda et al. (US 2008/0133715 Al; published June 5, 2008) in view of Mahajan et al. (US 2008/0189355 Al; published Aug. 7, 2008). We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS The Examiner finds that Yoneda discloses all of the limitations of independent claim 1 except for (1) “the first client application and the second client application are each running on the media player device” and (2) “executing the requests ‘on the processor-based device.’” Final Act. 5— 6. The Examiner further finds that Mahajan teaches these two limitations and provides evidence that running a plurality of applications on a single device was well known in the art and yielded predictable results. Id. at 6; 3 Appeal 2016-005390 Application 13/104,457 see also Ans. 7 (finding that Mahajan teaches a plurality of different applications that use different application protocols to communicate). With respect to the fourth limitation of claim 1, “executing, on the processor-based device, the first playback request and the second playback request by one or more players implemented in a single protocol, ” the Examiner further explains that the rejection is based upon an interpretation of the claim term “protocol” that is broader than the interpretation urged by Appellants. Final Act. 3^4. More specifically, the Examiner notes that Appellants had argued during examination that the term “protocols” should be limited to “internet protocols.” Id. at 3. But in contrast, the Examiner reasons that The term “protocol” is not defined in the claims other than being “specific” to a first or second application and therefore is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification. In this case, the specification provides several examples of protocols (paragraphs 30-32, Fig. 3) but does not define or limit the term “protocol” to exclude internet protocols. The specification specifically teaches that communication between the applications (i.e. the requests sent using the different protocols) “is through messages” (paragraph 30). Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “protocol” when viewed in light of the specification is simply any protocol that uses messages. Since the protocols taught by the combination of Yoneda and Mahajan use messages, they are equivalent to the “protocols” recited by the claims. Id. at 3^4. On appeal, Appellants re-assert, inter alia, that the claim term “protocol” is limited to meaning an “IP protocol.” App. Br. 13. In Appellants’ view, then, while the cited art may teach two playback requests being implemented in different application specific protocols of first and second client applications, the cited prior art does not teach executing these 4 Appeal 2016-005390 Application 13/104,457 first and second playback requests by one or more players implemented in a single protocol, as recited in claim 1. Id. at 12—13. ISSUE Appellants’ arguments present the following dispositive issue: does the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term “protocol” read on different protocols so long as the different protocols are message-based? ANALYSIS In Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), our reviewing court explained, [The claims] are part of a fully integrated written instrument, consisting principally of a specification that concludes with the claims. For that reason, claims must be read in view of the specification .... [T]he specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). We therefore look to Appellants’ Specification to analyze how Appellants use the terms “messages” and “protocols.” Appellants’ Specification uses these terms in the following manner: The [application program interface (API)] of the player service 210 is a message based protocol, which defines format of message for playback controls, like play, stop, pause, seek, volume setting, mute, video scaling, etc. According to several embodiments, the player service 210 provides different application specific protocols for its different client applications, e.g. the Chumby flash player 202, Sony BIVL player 204, and Adela audio command application 206. For example, the protocol for the Sony BIVL player 204 is different from the 5 Appeal 2016-005390 Application 13/104,457 protocol for Chumby flash player 202. FIG. 3 illustrates sample message formats for the protocol between the player service 210 and the Sony BNL player 204. Spec. 8. This usage indicates that protocols that use messages reasonably may be interpreted as constituting a type of protocol. But this usage does not indicate that it would have been reasonable to interpret different protocols merely of some given type as constituting the same protocol. As such, the Examiner has not established that the cited prior art teaches executing the two requests by one or more players implemented in a single protocol, as recited by claim 1. For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 10, 19, and 20, each of which sets forth executing such requests by one or more players implemented in a single protocol, or similar language. We likewise do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 2—9 and 11—18, which depend from independent claims 1 and 10. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation