Ex Parte Francis et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 201713578772 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 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. 13/578,772 08/13/2012 Scott Russell Francis PU090214 6412 24498 7590 03/01/2017 Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations THOMSON Licensing LLC 4 Research Way 3rd Floor Princeton, NJ 08543 EXAMINER NGUYEN, STEVEN C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2443 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2017 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): uspto@technicolor.com pat. verlangieri @ technicolor.com russell. smith @ technicolor.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SCOTT RUSSELL FRANCIS, GREGORY CHARLES HERLEIN, and ALAN JAY STEIN Appeal 2016-003920 Application 13/578,7721 Technology Center 2400 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1—4 and 6—13. Claim 5 has been canceled. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify THOMSON LICENSING/TECHNICOLOR as the real party in interest. Br. 3. Appeal 2016-003920 Application 13/578,772 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to “display systems and, more particularly, to a method for provisioning content display/digital signage applications using mobile communications technology.” Spec. 1. In an exemplary embodiment, the digital signage system can be part of an in store advertising network. Spec. 4. Content for the in-store advertising network may be provided by an advertiser. Spec. 5. Further, in a disclosed embodiment, an application may be installed on a mobile phone to communicate with the digital signage system. Spec. 7. The mobile phone may query the digital signage system for configuration and status information (e.g., name, location, demographic information) and may further communicate with an upstream content source or server. Spec. 7. The mobile phone may receive content intended for the digital signage system from the server and communicate (i.e., transmit) such content to the digital signage system. Spec. 7. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics'. 1. A method for provisioning a content display system, the method comprising: collecting provisioning information from said content display system using a mobile communications device communicating across a local communications channel, the provisioning information including at least one of a location identifier for the content display system, content currently displayed by the content display system, content transferred to the content display system playlog information and diagnostic health data; 2 Appeal 2016-003920 Application 13/578,772 communicating said collected provisioning information from said mobile communications device to a server providing at least content to said content display system; communicating data intended for said content display system from said server to said mobile communications device; and communicating said data received from said server and intended for said content display system to said content display system using said local communications channel. The Examiner’s Rejections2 1. Claims 1, 4, and 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin (US 2002/0102998 Al; Aug. 1, 2002) and Bertino-Clarke (US 2010/0299687 Al; Nov. 25, 2010 (filed May 23, 2009)). Final Act. 3—6. 2. Claims 2, 3, 7, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin, Bertino-Clarke, and Evora et al. (US 2008/0086550 Al; Apr. 10, 2008) (“Evora”). Final Act. 6-7. 3. Claims 6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin, Bertino-Clarke, and Lee (US 2010/0313096 Al; Dec. 9, 2010 (filed Apr. 27, 2010) (continuation of 11/754,184, filed May 25, 2007)). Final Act. 8-9. 2 In the Final Office Action, the Examiner included the rejection of claim 3 along with the rejection of claims 1, 4, and 9—11. Final Act. 3—6. Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and should have been included along with the rejection of claims 2, 7, 12, and 13. See Final Act. 6—7. Appellants do not assert any prejudice as a result of the Examiner’s error. Thus, for purposes of our review we include the rejection of claim 3 in the header and section for the rejection of claims 2, 7, 12, and 13 and treat the Examiner’s typographical error as harmless. 3 Appeal 2016-003920 Application 13/578,772 Issues on Appeal 1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Lin and Bertino-Clarke teaches or suggests “communicating data intended for said content display system from said server to said mobile communications device,” as recited in claim 1? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Lin and Bertino-Clarke teaches or suggests collecting provisioning information, including at least one of a location identifier for the content display system, by a mobile communications device, as required by claim 1 ? ANALYSIS3 Appellants contend Lin teaches “content communicated to a mobile phone is intended for the mobile phone and is to be rendered by the mobile phone.” Br. 10. Appellants argue Lin’s teaching is in contrast to the requirements of claim 1, which recites the communicated content received by the mobile communications device is “intended for [the] content display system.” Br. 10 (emphasis omitted), further, Appellants assert “in the invention of the Appellant, the data/content is never intended to be rendered by the mobile phone and is always intended for a content display system.” Br. 10 We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. As an initial matter, the Examiner notes, as do we, Appellants recite various features (e.g., “the data content is never intended to be rendered by the mobile phone and is always 3 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed June 10, 2015 (“Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed on December 14, 2015 (“Ans.”); and the final Office Action (“final Act.”), mailed on September 11, 2014, from which this Appeal is taken. 4 Appeal 2016-003920 Application 13/578,772 intended for a content display system. . . . there is no need for a transcoding module”) that are not present in the claims. Ans. 12 (quoting Br. 10). Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1 and, thus, does not demonstrate error in the Examiner’s rejection. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability). Further, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Fin teaches communicating data intended for a content display system from a server to a mobile communications device. Final Act. 3^4 (citing Fin ]f]f 33, 36). Fin teaches “an auxiliary rendering device comprising mobile device communication means for establishing an auxiliary communication session with a mobile device, and rendering means for rendering content received in the auxiliary communication session.” Fin|2. Examples of auxiliary rendering devices are loudspeakers and displays. Fin 124. Fin discloses a mobile communication device may establish an auxiliary communication session with an auxiliary rendering device such that content received from a content server by the mobile communication device may be sent to the auxiliary rendering device (via the auxiliary communication session) where the content is rendered. Fin || 30-33. In particular, Fin discloses the transcoding proxy transcodes content from the content server “into a format suitable for rendering on the auxiliary rendering device.” Fin 133; see also Final Act. 3^4 (citing Fin || 33, 36). Additionally, paragraph 36 of Fin discloses the mobile communication device receives the transcoded content and “transmits the content via the auxiliary communication session to the auxiliary rendering device.” Fin 136. 5 Appeal 2016-003920 Application 13/578,772 Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Lin teaches or suggests communicating data intended for the auxiliary rendering device (the claimed “content display system”) from a transcoding proxy/content server to the mobile communication device. Additionally, Appellants concede Bertino-Clarke teaches a user information process that collects and stores information pertaining to the user of a device, “such information including at least a geographic location of the device.” Br. 12 (citing Bertino-Clarke 191). However, Appellants argue Bertino-Clarke does not teach that such information (i.e., the claimed provisioning information) is collected using a mobile communications device. Br. 12. We are not persuaded of Examiner error because Appellants’ arguments are not responsive to the Examiner’s rejection and attack the references separately, whereas the Examiner’s rejection relies on the combined teachings of Lin and Bertino-Clarke. Specifically, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Lin teaches a mobile communications device collecting provisioning information from a content display system. Final Act. 3 (citing Lin || 29, 30); see also Ans. 14—15. The Examiner finds Bertino- Clarke teaches collecting and storing a geographic location of a device by recording the device’s assigned IP address. Final Act. 4 (citing Bertino- Clarke 191); see also Ans. 15 (citing Bertino-Clarke 158, 86; Figure 15). The Examiner finds, inter alia, “while Lin disclosed sending of data to a mobile device, Bertino-Clark specifically disclosed sending of data to a device by way of an IP address.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner further explains, and we agree, 6 Appeal 2016-003920 Application 13/578,772 [I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the IP address of Bertino-Clark with the teachings of Lin in order to ensure that content is sent to the correct receiver, thereby increasing the efficiency of Lin. Final Act. 4—5. Thus, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Lin and Bertino-Clark to teach or suggest the contested limitation. For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and, for similar reasons, the rejection of independent claim 9, which recites similar limitations and was not argued separately. See Br. 13. Additionally, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 3, 4, 10, and 11, which depend therefrom and were not argued separately. See Br. 13-14. Appellants contend Evora fails to remedy the alleged deficiencies in independent claims 1 and 9 and that the rejection of claims 2,1, 12, and 13 is, therefore, also in error. Br. 15—16. As discussed supra, we find no error with the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 9. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 7, 12, and 13. Similarly, Appellants contend Lee fails to remedy the alleged deficiencies in independent claims 1 and 9 and that the rejection of claims 6 and 8 is, therefore, also in error. Br. 17—18. As discussed supra, we find no error with the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 9. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 8. 7 Appeal 2016-003920 Application 13/578,772 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—4 and 6—13. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation