Ex Parte Karaoguz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2012

10672654 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JEYHAN KARAOGUZ and JAMES D. BENNETT
____________________

Appeal 2011-006640
Application 10/672,654
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before GREGORY J. GONSALVES, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006640
Application 10/672,654

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
1

The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1-7, 9-19, 21-31, and 33-40, the only claims pending in
the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

The Appellants invented a system supporting the exchange and
consumption of media using a common user interface. Specification ¶ 09.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added]:
1. A system supporting the communication and consumption of
media using a common user interface, the system comprising:

a television display in a first home;

a first storage for storing media, in the first home, having a first
associated network address, the first storage communicatively
coupled to the television display;

a first graphical user interface for display on the television
display, the first graphical user interface having at least one
view comprising graphical representations of one or more
media channels supporting the communication and
consumption of media, and having a first look and feel;

1
Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Nov. 23, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar.4, 2011),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 1, 2011), and Final
Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed Jun. 30, 2010).
Appeal 2011-006640
Application 10/672,654

3
a personal computer monitor in a second home;

a second storage for storing media, in the second home, having
a second associated network address, the second storage
communicatively coupled to the personal computer monitor;

a second graphical user interface for display on the personal
computer monitor, the second graphical user interface having at
least one view comprising graphical representations of the one
or more media channels supporting the communication and
consumption of media, and having a second look and feel;

software resident in a first memory at the first home and a
second memory at the second home, the software enabling a
user at the first home to construct, at the first home, the one or
more media channels from user selected and scheduled media
content, the software also enabling closed and secure
communication of the one or more media channels to members
of a user group, in a peer to peer manner, from the first home to
the second home;

software that receives a request that identifies one of the first
and second associated network addresses, and responds by
identifying the other of the first and second associated network
addresses to support the communication via the communication
network of media between the first storage and the second
storage for consumption; and

the first graphical user interface and the second graphical user
interface being substantially the same graphical user interface,
the first look and feel and the second look and feel being
substantially the same.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Ellis US 6,774,926 B1 Aug. 10, 2004
Parker US 2004/0125789 A1 Jul. 1, 2004
Schoen US 7,321,969 B2 Jan. 22, 2008
Appeal 2011-006640
Application 10/672,654

4
REJECTION
Claims 1-7, 9-19, 21-31, and 33-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Ellis, Schoen, and Parker.

ISSUE
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-7, 9-19,
21-31, and 33-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ellis,
Schoen, and Parker turns on whether Ellis, Schoen, and Parker teaches or
suggests “software also enabling closed and secure communication of the
one or more media channels to members of a user group, in a peer to peer
manner, from the first home to the second home.”

ANALYSIS
The Appellants contend that the combination of Ellis, Schoen, and
Parker fails to teach or suggest “software also enabling closed and secure
communication of the one or more media channels to members of a user
group, in a peer to peer manner, from the first home to the second home,” as
required by claim 1. App. Br. 18-20 and Reply Br. 5-7. The Appellants
specifically argue that Schoen fails to describe “closed and secure
communication…in a peer to peer manner.” Id.
We agree with the Appellants. The Examiner found that the claims
require a “peer to peer” manner (i.e. architecture or network) and a “peer to
peer” architecture is well-known in the art as “communication between 2
computers with the same communication protocol.” Ans. 21 (citing
Microsoft Computer Dictionary 397). However, as argued by the
Appellants, Microsoft Computer Dictionary further defines that a “peer to
Appeal 2011-006640
Application 10/672,654

5
peer” architecture requires each computer to be considered equal in terms of
responsibilities and each acts as a server to others in the network, such a
dedicated server is not required as in client/server architectures. Microsoft
Computer Dictionary 397 and Reply Br. 6-7.
Schoen, as found by the Examiner, describes an instant messaging
system that includes an instant messaging server that is in communication
with a plurality of instant messaging devices or clients. Ans. 21-22 (citing
Schoen 6:1-65 and Fig. 1). That is, Schoen describes a client/server
architecture because it uses a server in communication with a plurality of
client devices. Since the claims require “peer to peer,” we do not agree with
the Examiner that Schoen describes “software also enabling closed and
secure communication of the one or more media channels to members of a
user group, in a peer to peer manner, from the first home to the second
home.” Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 or
dependent claims 2-7 and 9-13.
Independent claims 14 and 25 recite this same limitation and therefore
we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 14 and 25 and
dependent claims 15-19, 21-24, 26-31, and 33-40 for the same reasons.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 9-19,
21-31, and 33-40.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-7, 9-19, 21-31, and 33-40
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ellis, Schoen, and Parker.

Appeal 2011-006640
Application 10/672,654

6
DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 1-7, 9-19, 21-31, and 33-40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ellis, Schoen, and Parker is not
sustained.

REVERSED

ELD