Ex Parte Jupin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2015

11603878 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2015)

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.
11/603,878 11/22/2006 Brian D. Jupin PD-206029 2503
20991 7590 06/26/2015
THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC.
PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION
CA / LA1 / A109
2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
EXAMINER
MURPHY, CHARLES C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2455
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2015 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 BRIAN D. JUPIN
____________________

Appeal 2013-003087
Application 11/603,878
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before KEN B. BARRETT, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1–8, 11–16, and 18–23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2013-003087
Application 11/603,878

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to “a method for storing information in a
portable media player or other portable or mobile device from a content
storage device and more specifically for a system and method of updating
file segments on the portable devices.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1 illustrates the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
coupling a set top box having a storage device to a
network for receiving content;
communicating a file having a plurality of segments and
a replacement segment through the network;
storing the file and replacement segment in the storage
device of the set top box;
coupling a portable device to the set top box separate
from the portable device at a first time through a first data port
at the set top box and a second data port at the portable
device;
communicating the file through the first data port and the
second data port;
storing the file in the portable device;
coupling the portable device to the storage device
through the first data port and the second data port at a second
time after the first time; and
updating a first segment of the plurality of segments of
the file with the replacement segment and not updating a second
segment of the plurality of segments of the file.
Appeal 2013-003087
Application 11/603,878

3

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 11–14, 16, and 18–22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Guillorit (US 2008/0256378 A1; Oct.
16, 2008) and Golan (US 2006/0036488 A1; Feb. 16, 2006).
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Guillorit, Golan, and Casey (US 2007/0124781 A1; May 31, 2007).
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Guillorit, Golan, and Medvinsky (US 2005/0022019 A1; Jan. 27, 2005).
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Guillorit, Golan, and Gibbon (US 2007/0050827 A1; Mar. 1, 2007).
Claims 14, 15, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Guillorit, Golan, Ryal (US 2005/0050578 A1; Mar. 3,
2005).
ISSUE
The following issue is dispositive of this appeal: Does the Examiner’s
combination of Guillorit and Golan teach or suggest “updating a first
segment of the plurality of segments of the file with the replacement
segment and not updating a second segment of the plurality of segments of
the file” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments and we agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred. The cited
portions of Golan disclose (1) playing movie and ad files by using pointers
to load the movie and ad files into a buffer in real time and (2) downloading
new ad files to provide viewers with different ads. See Final Act. 4–5 (citing
Appeal 2013-003087
Application 11/603,878

4
Golan ¶¶ 32, 42, 46, 51). We agree with Appellant that, absent additional
persuasive reasoning or evidence, this process does not teach or suggest
“updating a first segment of the plurality of segments of the file with the
replacement segment and not updating a second segment of the plurality of
segments of the file” as recited in claim 1. See Reply Br. 4; App. Br. 10.
Simply placing complete files into a buffer does not teach or suggest
updating a first segment or portion of a file with a replacement segment and
not updating a second segment of the same file. We are therefore
constrained by the record before us to reverse the rejection of claim 1.
Because claims 2–8, 11–16, and 18–23 either depend from claim 1 or recite
a similar limitation, we also reverse the rejections of these claims.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1–8, 11–16, and 18–23.

REVERSED

mls