Ex Parte LeeDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 4, 201611715185 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111715, 185 0310712007 20991 7590 05/05/2016 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. PA TENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION CA I LAI I Al09 2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Sean S. Lee 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. PD-206091 5332 EXAMINER THOMAS, JASON M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2423 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 05/05/2016 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 SEAN S. LEE Appeal2014-008865 Application 11/715,185 Technology Center 2400 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JON M. JURGOV AN, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-008865 Application 11/715, 185 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 9-13, 15-23, 34, and 35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows: 1. A method of operating a system comprising: generating a request for a list of content from a seat terminal disposed within a vehicle; providing a list of content to the seat terminal from a central server within the vehicle; selecting a selection from the list of content; streaming content corresponding to the selection to the seat terminal; displaying the content at the seat terminal; initiating a purchasing event from the seat terminal; selecting a purchase option from the seat terminal to form a purchase selection; purchasing the content after selecting the purchase option by communicating the purchase selection to the central server within the vehicle; coupling a portable device to the seat terminal; communicating content to the portable device through the seat terminal after purchasing from the central server with digital rights associated therewith; and storing the content and the digital rights within the portable device. 2 Appeal2014-008865 Application 11/715, 185 Rejections The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-6, 9-13, 17-23, and 25-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Weinberger et al. (US 6,813,777 Bl, issued Nov. 2, 2004), Wysocki (US 2008/0052704 Al,published Feb. 28, 2008), and Beetcher et al. (US 2008/0040758 Al, published Feb. 14, 2008). The Examiner rejected claims 15, 16, 34, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Weinberger, Wysocki, Beetcher, and Kenner et al. (US 5,956,716, issued Sept. 21, 1999). Issues on Appeal1 (a) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Weinberger and Wysocki teaches "communicating content to the portable device through the seat terminal ... and storing the content ... within the portable device," as recited in claim 1? (b) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Weinberger and Wysocki teaches "storing the content and the digital rights within the portable device," as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's conclusions. 1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 3-6, 9-13, 17-23, and 25- 32. (App. Br. 10-12). Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. 3 Appeal2014-008865 Application 11/715, 185 Regarding above issue (a), Appellant argues each of Weinberger and Wysocki individually fails to teach communicating content to a portable device through the seat terminal and storing that content within the portable device, as required by claim 1 (App. Br. 5-11; Reply Br. 2-5). We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive. Appellant inappropriately attacks each of Weinberger and Wysocki, individually, where the Examiner relies on the combination of Weinberger and Wysocki. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Moreover, Appellant's arguments overlook and reveal no error in the Examiner's specific findings regarding Weinberger and Wysocki (see App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2). The Examiner finds Weinberger teaches connecting a portable device (e.g., personal computer) to its entertainment system via its seat terminals (Fin. Act. 4--5; Ans. 3--4, citing Weinberger col. 57, 1. 60- col. 58, 1. 10). The Examiner further finds Wysocki teaches communicating content to, and storing the content on, a portable device (Fin. Act. 4--5; Ans. 4--6, citing Wysocki i-f 33-37, 48, Abstract). Based thereupon, the Examiner finds the combination of Weinberger and Wysocki teaches communicating content to the portable device through the seat terminal and storing the content within the portable device. Appellant's bare arguments that each of Weinberger and Wysocki individually does not teach the limitations which the Examiner relied upon the combination of Weinberger and Wysocki to teach, do not persuade us of Examiner error. 4 Appeal2014-008865 Application 11/715, 185 Regarding issue (b), Appellant argues each of Weinberger, Wysocki, and Beetcher fails to teach a transfer of digital rights (App. Br. 7, 8, 10; Reply Br. 3). As it pertains to Weinberger and Beetcher, Appellant's argument is inappropriate because the Examiner relies upon Wysocki for its teaching of transferring digital rights (Fin. Act. 5; Ans. 6-7). Regarding Wysocki, Appellant ultimately argues "Wysocki merely states that all or part of an electronic package can be encrypted to prevent unauthorized access. There is no reference to a transfer of digital rights .... " (Reply Br. 3). We disagree. The Examiner finds Wysocki teaches media may be encrypted to provide the digital right of protection from unauthorized access (see Ans. 6- 7; see also Wysocki i-f 43). Additionally, the media may be designed to execute only on an authorized device, thus providing the digital right of preventing unauthorized exchange of the media (id.). Appellant's argument that there is no reference to a transfer of digital rights is not persuasive because the skilled artisan would recognize that in order for the aforementioned digital rights to be effectuated upon transfer of the media to the device, the digital rights also would be transferred. Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of the references renders obvious "storing the content and the digital rights within the portable device," as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3---6, 9--13, 15-23, 34, and 35. 5 Appeal2014-008865 Application 11/715, 185 CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 3---6, 9--13, 15- 23, 34, and 35 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (2) Claims 1, 3---6, 9--13, 15-23, 34, and 35 are not patentable. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3---6, 9-13, 15-23, 34, and 35 are 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation