Ex Parte Jeffs et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 14, 201412200903 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2014) 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. 12/200,903 08/28/2008 Alistair E. Jeffs PD-208040 8468 20991 7590 10/15/2014 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION CA / LA1 / A109 2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245 EXAMINER AUGUSTIN, EVENS J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3685 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/15/2014 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 ALISTAIR E. JEFFS, CARL S. SMITH, and DAVID E. SHANKS ____________ Appeal 2012-005587 Application 12/200,903 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1–30 which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM. Appeal 2012-005587 Application 12/200,903 2 THE INVENTION The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to ordering content using a hyperlink (Spec., para. 1). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method of ordering content comprising: [1] forming a link corresponding to content; [2] accessing a content ordering system by selecting the link; [3] enabling a content recording request from the content ordering system; [4] receiving the content associated with the link at a user device in response to the content recording request; [5] and storing the content in a memory of the user device. THE REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1–30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kumar (US 2009/0199230 A1, pub. Aug. 6, 2009), Zaki (US 2005/0251558 A1, pub. Nov. 10, 2005), and Rampell (US 2008/0077506 A1, pub. Mar. 27, 2008). FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence1. 1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). Appeal 2012-005587 Application 12/200,903 3 ANALYSIS The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because Kumar fails to disclose claim limitations [2], [3], and [4] (App. Br. 4–6, Reply Br. 2–5). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim limitations are found in Kumar at paragraphs 18, 22, 65, and 82 (Ans. 5). We agree with the Examiner. Claims limitations [2], [3], and [4] require: [2] accessing a content ordering system by selecting the link; [3] enabling a content recording request from the content ordering system; [4] receiving the content associated with the link at a user device in response to the content recording request. Claim limitation [2] requires accessing a content ordering system by selecting a link and this is shown by Kumar’s disclosure at paragraph 18 that an email may contain a link to a video clip based on a selection by the user in which the video would serve as the claimed “content” ordered by the link. Claim limitation [3] requires the enabling of a content recording request from the content ordering system and this is shown by Kumar’s disclosure at paragraph 82 in which videos may be stored across a number of media devices for access by a user. Here, the transmission of the content to an end user serves as the claimed “enabling” in claim limitations [3]. Also, the completed transmission disclosed at paragraphs 18 and 82 serves to disclose “receiving the content associated with the link” as required by claim limitation [4]. As the argued claim limitations [2], [3], and [4] are shown in Kumar as the rejection of record asserts, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. Appeal 2012-005587 Application 12/200,903 4 The Appellants have provided the same arguments for the remaining claims as they did for claim 1 and the rejection of these claims is sustained for the same reasons given above. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejection section above. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–30 is sustained. AFFIRMED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation