Ex Parte Kim

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 16, 2016

13726714 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2016)

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.
13/726,714 12/26/2012 James Chihoon Kim 066.0362 (P2012-09-43) 7583
70560 7590 12/20/2016
T Kfrlnhal fRrhn.StarJ
EXAMINER
7010 E. COCHISE ROAD
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85253
DUFFIELD, JEREMY S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
IPDEPT @ echostar.com
docketing @LKGlobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES CHIHOON KIM
Appeal 2016-004789
Application 13/726,7141
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Sling Media, Inc. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief, filed August 20, 2015
(“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed February 2, 2016 (“Ans.”);
and the Final Office Action, mailed December 18, 2014 (“Final Act.”).
Appeal 2016-004789
Application 13/726,714
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1,11, and 18 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced
1. A method executable by a host communicating via a first,
mobile network with a mobile device client and via a second
network with a media server configured to record and access
information regarding media content, the method comprising:
receiving a first message from the mobile device client at
the host via the first, mobile network, wherein the first message
is generated in response to a user selecting a selectable icon
regarding a first instance of media content at the mobile device
client, and wherein the host comprises a mobile platform
application accessible by the mobile device client;
in response to the first message, establishing a session
between the host and the media server via the second network;
receiving, from the media server via the second network,
information regarding the first instance of media content and a
second instance of media content, wherein the second instance of
media content is related to the first instance of media content;
providing the information regarding the first instance of
media content and the second instance of media content to the
mobile device client via the first, mobile network;
receiving an instruction from the mobile device client at
the host via the first, mobile network to control the media server
in a manner so as to schedule a recording of the second instance
of media content at the media server; and
directing the media server via the second network to
execute the instruction via the session.
below:
References
Aldrey et al. US 2009/0119701 A1
Paul et al. US 2011/0150432 Al
May 7, 2009
June 23, 2011
2
Appeal 2016-004789
Application 13/726,714
Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Paul and Aldrey. Final Act. 4—18.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues:
[T]he final Office Action fails to recognize and account for the
fact that it is not only the first instance of media content that is
enabled, but the second as well, by the user’s “selecting a
selectable icon,” and moreover that these are provided via
separate (first, mobile, and second networks). Nowhere in the
final Office Action are these specified combinations of features
accounted for in the stated rationale for obviousness (section 103
rejections).
App. Br. 10.
We disagree. In both the Final Office Action and in the Answer, the
Examiner provides articulated reasoning with rational underpinning
supporting the conclusion of obviousness. See Final Act. 4—7; Ans. 1—4. In
particular, the Examiner relies on Paul for teaching a first message generated
in response to a user request regarding a first instance of media content and
“receiving, from the media server via the second network, information
regarding the first instance of media content and a second instance of media
content, wherein the second instance of media content is related to the first
instance of media content,” as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 4—5 (citing
Paul 38, 41, 54). We note that Appellant’s cited support in the
Specification for these limitations is described nearly identically in Paul,
except that the corresponding disclosure in Paul does not have a specific
teaching of a “selectable icon,” as the Examiner finds. See Final Act. 6;
compare Spec. H 30, 34, 35, 62, and 63 (cited at App. Br. 5), with,
3
Appeal 2016-004789
Application 13/726,714
respectively, Paul H 21, 25, 26, 53, and 54. The Examiner relies on the
disclosure of Aldrey for teaching a selectable icon through which a user can
send a request message. See Final Act. 6 (citing Aldrey 33, 43, 49, and
50, Fig. 7). Aldrey discloses that “the request may be sent by clicking or
selecting on an icon or link on the web page.” Aldrey 134 (emphasis
added). Thus, Aldrey provides disclosure of the claimed subject matter the
Examiner acknowledges is not explicitly taught by Paul. The Examiner
combines the teachings of Aldrey with the teachings of Paul, determining
that it would have been obvious to do so to “provid[e] a quick and easy well-
known method of executing a communication process.” See Final Act. 7;
see also Ans. 3^4.
Appellant argues that “the Office Action has not provided any reason
why, accounting for all elements in the independent claims as noted above,
the combination of Paul and Aldrey meets or otherwise accounts for each
elements of the recited independent claims.” App. Br. 11. With respect to
the particular limitations Appellant alleges to be missing from the
combination, we disagree with Appellant’s contentions for the reasons
discussed above. The Examiner has addressed all subject matter recited in
claim 1, and we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. See
Final Act. 4—7. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as the
rejection of claims 2—20, for which Appellant presents no additional
arguments for patentability.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
4
Appeal 2016-004789
Application 13/726,714
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5