Ex Parte Logan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2017

14181652 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2017)

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.
NC-02 3530
EXAMINER
FLANDERS, ANDREW C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2656
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
14/181,652 02/15/2014
21253 7590
Charles G. Call
27 Londonderry Lane
Lincolnshire, IL 60069
James D. Logan
02/14/2017 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 JAMES D. LOGAN, DANIEL F. GOESSLING,
and CHARLES G. CALL
Appeal 2016-003300
Application 14/181,6521
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—8, which constitute all of the claims
pending in this appeal. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Personal Audio LLC. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-003300
Application 14/181,652
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants invented an apparatus for allowing user at a remotely
located client device (103) to dynamically download from a server library
(130) utility programs (131) and up-to-date media files containing audio
recordings (132) to implement media players on the client device (103).
Spec. 112, 41, Fig. 1.
Illustrative Claim2
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. Apparatus for disseminating a series of episodes represented by
media files via the Internet, as said episodes become available, to each
of a plurality of remotely located programmable client devices, said
apparatus comprising:
one or more data storage servers for storing:
a. one or more media files representing each episode of
said series of episodes as said one or more media files become
available, each of said one or more media files including a
compressed audio recording and each being stored at a storage
location specified by a unique episode URL;
b. one or more utility programs that are executable by
each of said remotely located programmable client devices;
one or more communication interfaces connected to the Internet
for receiving requests received from said remotely located
programmable client devices executing said one or more utility
programs, and for responding to each given one of said requests by
returning a data file identified by a URL specified by said given one
of said requests to the requesting client device,
one or more processors coupled to said one or more data
storage servers and to said one or more communications interfaces
for:
2 We note the order (“a.”, “b.”, then “(e)” through “(g)”) listed in the claim
does not follow a proper alphabetic sequence.
2
Appeal 2016-003300
Application 14/181,652
from time to time, as new episodes represented in said
series of episodes become available, storing an updated version
of a compilation file in said one or more data storage servers at
a storage location identified by a predetermined URL, said
updated version of said compilation file containing attribute
data describing currently available episodes in said series of
episodes, said attribute data for each given one of said currently
available episodes including displayable text describing said
given one of said currently available episodes and one or more
episode URLs specifying the storage locations of one or more
corresponding media files representing said given one of said
currently available episodes; and
employing said one or more communication interfaces to:
(e) download said one or more utility programs for
storage by and execution by each of said remotely located client
devices,
(f) receive a request from a requesting programmable
client device executing said one or more utility programs for the
updated version of said [] compilation file located at said
predetermined URL,
(g) download said updated version of said compilation
file to said requesting programmable client device; and
(h) thereafter receive and respond to a request from said
requesting programmable client device executing said one or
more utility programs for one or more media files identified by
one or more corresponding episode URLs included in the
attribute data contained in said updated version of said
compilation file.
Charles L. Compton Internet CNN NEWSROOM: The Design of a
Digital Video News Magazine M.I.T. (1995).
Prior Art Relied Upon
Schulhof
Rose
US 5,841,979
US 6,202,058 B1
Nov. 24, 1998
Mar. 13, 2001
3
Appeal 2016-003300
Application 14/181,652
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1,3, and 6—8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-
AIA) as being unpatentable over the combination of Schuhof and Compton.
Final Rej. 6—13.
Claims 2, 4, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Schulhof, Compton, and
Rose. Final Rej. 13—17.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments, as they are presented in the
Appeal Brief, pages 4—6, and the Reply Brief, pages 1—4.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellants argue the proposed
combination of Schulhof and Compton does not teach or suggest
downloading from a server utility programs that enable the remote client
devices to issue requests for updated compilation files at a predetermined
URL. App. Br. 4—5, Reply Br. 3. In particular, Appellants argue that
although downloading browser software (e.g., Netscape) was well-known at
the time of the invention, the browser software relied upon by the Examiner
to teach the utility program is not downloaded from the data storage server,
as required by the claim. Reply Br. 3. This argument is persuasive.
At the outset, we note claim 1 recites in relevant-part “one or more data
storage servers for storing . . . one or more utility programs”, and “download
said one or more utility programs for storage by and execution by each of
said remotely located client devices.” Therefore, the claim does require the
client devices downloading the utility programs from the data storage server.
4
Appeal 2016-003300
Application 14/181,652
The Examiner finds that both Schulhof and Compton disclose a web
publication server accessible by a personal computer to obtain daily updates
via the Internet. Ans. 7 (citing Schulhof, Fig. 1, and Compton, section 2.3).
The Examiner also finds that “Compton requires a web browser to retrieve
the various episodes presented in the GUI. At the time of the invention, web
browsers, such as ‘Netscape Navigator’ were notoriously well known.
Further, downloading for installation of browser software, such as Netscape
was notoriously well known.” Id. at 17—18.
Although it is undisputed that, at the time of the invention, downloading
browser software was well-known, the Examiner has not established, nor
were we able to identify, on this record, any evidence that the browser
software used in Compton to retrieve the episodes or daily updates was
downloaded from the web publication server, as required by the claim.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown
how the proposed combination of Schulhof and Compton teaches or
suggests a client device downloading a utility program from a data storage
server.
Because Appellants have shown at least one reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection, we need not reach Appellants’ remaining
arguments. Consequently, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as
well as the rejections of claims 2—8, which recite the disputed limitations
discussed above.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 1—8 as set forth above.
REVERSED
5