Ex Parte Karaoguz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2013

10672648 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JEYHAN KARAOGUZ and JAMES D. BENNETT
____________

Appeal 2012-002728
Application 10/672,648
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 1-14 and 36-55 (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2012-002728
Application 10/672,648

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method or apparatus for
indirectly controlling at least one media peripheral via a communication
network (Spec. ¶ [17]).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
Claim 1. A method to indirectly control at least one
media peripheral via a communication network, the method
comprising:

creating a user-defined schedule of media stored at a first
location using a television at the first location;

pushing media from the first location to the at least one
media peripheral at a second location according to the user-
defined schedule of media created at the first location;

constructing, at the first location, one or more media
channels from user selected and scheduled media content; and

communicating in a peer-to-peer manner the one or more
media channels from the first location to the second location via
a closed and secure communication.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-10, 12-14, 36-45, and 47-55 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Ellis (U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub.
2005/0028208 A1, published February 3, 2005) (hereinafter Ellis ’208), Ellis
(US 6,774,926 B1, issued August 10, 2004 (filed March 3, 2000))
(hereinafter Ellis ’926), and common knowledge in the art (Official Notice)
(Ans. 4-10).
Appeal 2012-002728
Application 10/672,648

3
The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Ellis ’208, Ellis ’926, Official Notice, and Daum
(US 6,665,384 B2, issued December 16, 2003 (filed June 14, 2001)) (Ans.
10-11).

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Ellis ‘208 does not disclose pushing media from a
first location to at least one media peripheral and the Examiner is incorrect
in taking Official Notice that communication streams sent over the Internet
can be sent over a secure connection (App. Br. 6-7).
The Examiner finds “Ellis ‘208 teaches a system for remotely pushing
information from a remote location to television equipment at a home
location,” teaches various types of devices that can operate in television
equipment, and indicates remote devices can interact with peripherals
connected to the television equipment (Ans. 11). Additionally, the Examiner
finds Ellis ‘926 teaches pushing media from user equipment at a first
location to user equipment at a second location-the user equipment can
include a set top box (Ans. 12). Lastly, The Examiner finds the Official
Notice does meet the claimed limitation of a closed and secure
communication (Ans. 13). We agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt
them as our own.
We also find Appellants have merely recited claim language and
stated the cited references do not teach the claim limitations without
providing substantive arguments rebutting the Examiner’s findings (App. Br.
6-7). Further, Appellants have taken the Examiner’s assertion (Ans. 6, 13)
regarding a secure connection out of context (App. Br. 8).
Appeal 2012-002728
Application 10/672,648

4
Thus, for the above reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
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 claim 1, and claims 2-4, 6-14, 36-39, 41-
53, and 55 argued together (App. Br.6, 10). 1
With respect to claim 54, which depends from claim 1, Appellants
again contend a “media peripheral” is not taught by Ellis ‘208 (App. Br. 8).
Appellants have not provided substantive arguments regarding this rejection,
merely reciting the claim elements and stating the references do not teach
the limitations claimed (id.). The Examiner has provided a reasoned
argument that was not rebutted by Appellants (Ans. 13-14). Thus, 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 claim 54 and claims dependent therefrom, not
separately argued (App. Br. 8).
With respect to claim 5, which depends from claim 54, Appellants
assert the term “comprises one of” does not mean only one (App. Br. 9;
Reply Br. 4). Given the “comprises one of” language and the “or” (before
the last recited operation of claim 5), we agree with the Examiner that claim
5 means only one of the list of operations in claim 5 is performed. (Ans.14).
Thus, we find the Examiner did not err in finding Ellis ‘208 teaches one of
the operations listed in claim 5 (id.) and claim 40 not separately argued
(App. Br. 10).

1 It is noted claim 55 depends from claim 35, which was cancelled. We are
grouping claim 55 with claim 1 for the purposes of this Appeal.
Appeal 2012-002728
Application 10/672,648

5
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-14 and 36-55 under 35
U.S.C § 103 is affirmed.
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