Ex Parte Karaoguz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2013

10675073 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JEYHAN KARAOGUZ and JAMES BENNETT
____________________

Appeal 2011-012397
Application 10/675,073
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-44. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2011-012397
Application 10/675,073

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method and system for
media channel setup in a media exchange network and for supporting
communication of media by establishing a private television channel to be
showed by a first television at a first home and a second television at a
second home (Spec. ¶¶ [04], [09]).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for supporting communication of media, the
method comprising:

establishing a private television channel to be showed by
a first television at a first home and a second television at a
second home, wherein said establishing said private television
channel comprises receiving via a user interface at said first
home a selection of one or more devices that are permitted to
receive personal media via the private television channel,
wherein said selected one of more devices include a device
associated with said second television and/or said second home;
and;

associating personal media with said private television
channel, wherein said personal media is pushed from said first
home to said second home using destination information
corresponding to said device associated with said second
television and/or said second home.

REFERENCES and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Ellis (U.S. 6,774,926 B1), Moynihan (U.S. Pat. App.
Pub. 2002/0056119 A1), and Zustak (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2002/0104098
A1).
Appeal 2011-012397
Application 10/675,073

3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Ellis discloses all the features of Appellants’
claim 1 except for associating destination information corresponding to a
device associated with a second television or home but that Zustak discloses
this feature (Ans. 5-6). The Examiner then finds Ellis and Zustak do not
clearly disclose establishing a private television channel by receiving at a
first home, one or more devices permitted to receive personal media, but
Moynihan discloses this feature (Ans. 7).
Appellants assert selecting viewers to receive media as taught by
Moynihan is not the same as selecting devices to receive media as claimed
and thus, the Examiner is incorrect in equating a viewer with a device (App.
Br. 10-11). Appellants contend even if Moynihan does disclose viewers as
claimed, Moynihan does not disclose a “channel owner receives the alleged
selection via V-Mail/MediaMogul to establish a private television network”
as claimed (App. Br. 12). That is, Moynihan does not disclose “establishing”
as claimed (App. Br. 10-12). Finally, Appellants assert Moynihan discloses
viewer interaction occurs after a channel is in existence (App. Br. 13, 17).
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own (see
Ans. 33-36). Particularly, it appears Appellants misapprehended the
Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner relies on Ellis as establishing a private
television channel and Moynihan as disclosing a user interface at a first
home for selection of one or more devices permitted to receive personal
media (Ans. 34). Appellants, in the Reply Brief, state the Examiner has not
provided an explanation or reasoning for the combination (Reply Br. 5). We
do not agree with Appellants. The Examiner has provided reasoning on
Appeal 2011-012397
Application 10/675,073

4
pages 35-36 of the Answer and additionally in the Grounds of Rejection
(Ans. 4-8).
We also do not agree with Appellants that viewers are different from
devices. As the Examiner finds, in Moynihan, an IP address identifies a
device such that multimedia may be accessed based on an IP address by way
of an interface (Ans. 35). Thus, Moynihan discloses a user interface
selecting devices for receiving personal media as claimed. Lastly, the
Examiner relies on Ellis and not Moynihan for disclosing establishing
personal media channels via a user (Ans. 5, 35). Appellants appear to be
arguing the references separately and not as a combination.
Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s
reading of the claims on the cited combination of references is overly broad,
unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification. We find the weight of
the evidence supports the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and
ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness, and therefore sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claims 11, 21,
32, 37, and 39, which recite substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and
for which substantially the same arguments were provided. With respect to
dependent claims 2-10, 12-20, 22-31, 33-36, 38, and 40-44, the arguments
provided rely on those asserted with respect to claim 1 and the other
independent claims. Thus, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
2-10, 12-20, 22-31, 33-36, 38, and 40-44.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-44 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is affirmed.
Appeal 2011-012397
Application 10/675,073

5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Tkl/llw