Ex Parte HaileyDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 16, 201713639979 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 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. 13/639,979 10/08/2012 James Edwin Hailey PU100105 9596 24498 7590 02/21/2017 Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations THOMSON Licensing LLC 4 Research Way 3rd Floor Princeton, NJ 08543 EXAMINER CHOWDHURY, NIGAR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2484 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/21/2017 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 JAMES EDWIN HAILEY Appeal 2016-006803 Application 13/639,979 Technology Center 2400 Before STEPHEN C. SIU, ERIC S. FRAHM, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-006803 Application 13/639,979 INTRODUCTION This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—10, 14—18, and 21—25. Claims 11— 13, 19, and 20 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Illustrative Claim Claims 1 and 15 are independent, and each recite a media player and method of operating a media play so as to require authorization of registered media to be played be the player (claims 1 and 15; Spec. 1:1—28, 7:1—4, 8:1— 9, 9:9-12; Abst.). Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below with emphases added to disputed portions of the claim: 1. In a media player, a method comprising: maintaining a registry of registered media comparing media to the maintained registry of registered media requiring authorization to play the media based on the registration of the media in the maintained registry, wherein the authorization is based on a device displaying the media being played by the media player and the authorization determines whether the device is authorized to display the registered media. Remaining independent claim 15 contains commensurate limitations, namely, “wherein [] authorization is based on a device displaying the media being played by the media player and the authorization determines whether the device is authorized to display the registered media” (claim 15 (emphases added)). 2 Appeal 2016-006803 Application 13/639,979 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection (Final Act. 4—10; Ans. 2— 8) in light of Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 5—8; Reply Br. 2—4) that the Examiner has erred, as well as the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 8—10). We concur with Appellant’s contentions (App. Br. 5—6; Reply Br. 2—4) that the Examiner erred in finding claims 1—10, 14—18, and 21—25 anticipated by Kamen (US 2003/0014750 Al; published Jan. 16, 2003) because Kamen fails to disclose authorization to play media “wherein [] authorization is based on a device displaying the media being played by the media player and the authorization determines whether the device is authorized to display the registered media,” as recited in each of independent claims 1 and 15. As supported by Appellant’s Specification (Spec. 7:1—4, 8:1—9, and 9:9-12), claims 1 and 15 recite authorization for playing media being made on a device by device basis, and not on a user basis as shown and described in Kamen (Fig. 14, step 416; 146 describing that in block 416 “the user will be authenticated” (emphasis added)). In this light, we agree with Appellant (Reply Br. 2—4) that Kamen teaches a system where media content access is authorized on a user by user basis without regard to the particular device a user is using (Reply Br. 3—4 citing Kamen || 46, 47), although Appellant’s claimed invention determines authorization on a device by device basis. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 15, as well as claims 2—10, 14, 16—18, and 21— 25, which depend respectively therefrom, as being anticipated by Kamen. DECISION 3 Appeal 2016-006803 Application 13/639,979 The Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1—10, 14—18, and 21— 25 is reversed. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation