Ex Parte HSU et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2016

13857638 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/857,638 04/05/2013
127226 7590 09/19/2016
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP
P.O. Box 747
Falls Church, VA 22040-0747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chin Huang HSU
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.
6024-0180PUS2 5021
EXAMINER
ADAMS, EILEEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2016 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):
mailroom@bskb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHIN HUANG HSU, SIU-LEONG YU,
SHIH-CHUN WEI, CHEN MA, and SUN CHIEN CHIU
Appeal2015-001713
Application 13/857,638
Technology Center 2400
Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, JOHN R. KENNY, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-001713
Application 13/857,638
STATEMENT OF CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-15. (App. Br. 20.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED INVENTION.
The claimed invention relates to a multimedia content providing
device that may transmit multimedia content and related multimedia
information at the same time. (Spec. i-f 2.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A multimedia content providing device, comprising:
a communication device, configured to operably receive a
multimedia content, a multimedia information, a display time
code, and an identification number of a recipient;
an access link generating device; configured to operably
generate an access link for the multimedia content and transmits
the access link to the recipient;
a play control device configured to operably receive a play
instruction corresponding to the multimedia content, and
configure the multimedia content to be transmitted to a
multimedia content display device in response to the play
instruction so that the multimedia content display device
displays a predetermined image frame of the multimedia
content at a time indicated by the display time code; and
an information display control device, configured to operably
configure a multimedia information providing device to
transmit the multimedia information to a portable information
display device according to the display time code and the
identification number of the recipient so that the portable
information display device displays the multimedia information
2
Appeal2015-001713
Application 13/857,638
when the multimedia content display device displays the
predetermined image frame;
wherein the multimedia information is related to an object of
the predetermined image frame; the object comprises at least
one of a character, an article, a sound, a scene, and a time of the
predetermined image frame; the multimedia information
comprises at least one of a text, a sound, an image, a vibration,
and a scent; and the identification number of the recipient is
associated with the portable information display device.
Morris ('383)
Morris ('418)
Roberts
REFERENCES
US 2011/0179383 Al July 21, 2011
US 2012/0144418 Al June 7, 2012
US 2013/0295893 Nov. 7, 2013
(filed Dec. 7, 2010)
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4--7, 9-12, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Morris '418 and
Roberts. (Ans. 4--22.)
Claims 3, 8, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Morris '418, Roberts, and Morris '383.
(Ans. 22-27.)
3
Appeal2015-001713
Application 13/857,638
ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of fact
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
appeal was taken. We have considered Appellants' arguments, but do not
find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
the cited devices in Morris do not perform the recited operations of the
multimedia content providing device according to "a multimedia content, a
multimedia information, a display code, and an identification number of a
recipient." (App. Br. 12.) This argument, however, does not persuade us of
error because it is not responsive to the Examiner's rejection. The Examiner
relies on the combined teachings of Morris and Roberts, rather than Morris
alone, for the involved limitations. (Final Act. 3-9; Ans. 28.) Therefore, the
attack on Morris alone is not persuasive. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332
(Fed. Cir. 2012). In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that the Examiner
does not sufficiently explain how the combination of Morris and Roberts
would suggest the involved limitations and that the Examiner improperly
relies on both client and server teachings in Morris. (Reply Br. 15-17.) We
will not consider these arguments, however, because Appellants could have
presented them in their Appeal Brief, but chose not to, and Appellants have
not presented any good cause for us to consider them now. 37 C.F.R. §
41.41 (b )(2); Final Act. 3-9. Presenting these arguments for the first time in
the Reply Brief denies us the opportunity to review a response by the
Examiner.
4
Appeal2015-001713
Application 13/857,638
Appellants further argue that Morris fails to teach or suggest the
"access link generating device" recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 12.)
According to Appellants, Morris broadcasts multimedia content without
utilizing a link, and, therefore, Morris does not disclose the recited access
link generating device. (Reply Br. 17.) We are not persuaded by this
argument because Appellants fail to address the disclosure in Morris, cited
by the Examiner, of embedding a time sensitive code into a video stream to
access collateral information associated with the video stream. (Ans. 28.)
Appellants set forth no persuasive reasons why that time sensitive code,
which is used to access information associated with the video stream, fails to
teach or suggest the recited access link and why the device embedding that
code in the video stream fails to teach or suggest the recited access link
generating device.
Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in finding communication
device 400 of Morris contains both the recited multimedia content providing
device and the multimedia information display device of claim 1. (App. Br.
12-13; Reply Br. 17-18.) Appellants argue that certain advantages of the
two recited devices are lost when they are located in the same
communication device. (App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 17-18.) A claim,
however, is not inherently limited to its most advantageous embodiments,
and Appellants present no persuasive reason why the language of claim 1
itself, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, would exclude the
configuration where the two recited devices are in a single communication
device. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 2004).
5
Appeal2015-001713
Application 13/857,638
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above regarding claim 1, and
for the reasons provided in the Answer and in the office action from which
this appeal was taken regarding claims 1-15, we sustain the rejections of
claims 1-15.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-15.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6