Ex Parte Mathews

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2016

12974635 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/974,635 12/21/2010
25537 7590 09/22/2016
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robin Montague Mathews
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.
20100587 4059
EXAMINER
TN, BACKHEAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2016 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBIN M. MATHEWS
Appeal2015-005556
Application 12/974,635
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-8 and 10-23. Claim 9 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2015-005556
Application 12/974,635
A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates to "an active system
monitor" implemented "within the home media server to register entities
executed by the server to be monitored, detect problematic issues, and
remedy these issues to prevent performance degradation or loss of service"
(Spec. ii 15).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A system, comprising:
a home media server;
a plurality of clients of the home media server;
a plurality of entities executed by the home media server and
configured to provide media content instances to the plurality of clients;
and
an active server system monitor configured to:
register the plurality of entities,
determine at least one monitoring parameter associated
with the registered plurality of entities,
monitor the registered plurality of entities according to the
at least one monitoring parameter to determine if any of the
registered plurality of entities have an issue and
if it is determined that a given entity of the plurality of
entities has an issue, terminate and restart the given entity.
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Grover
Abdolbaghian
Wang
Girardeau
US 2005/0015579 Al
US 6,981,048 Bl
US 2006/0248542 Al
US 7,984,177 B2
2
Jan.20,2005
Dec. 27, 2005
Nov. 2, 2006
July 19, 2011
Appeal2015-005556
Application 12/974,635
Claims 1--4, 8, 10, 11, 13-19, and 21-23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined teachings and
suggestions of Wang, Girardeau, and Grover.
Claims 5-7, 12, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combined teachings and suggestions of Wang,
Girardeau, Grover, and Abdolbaghian.
II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in
concluding that the combination of Wang, Girardeau, and Grover teaches or
would have suggested "a plurality of entities executed by the home media
server and configured to provide media content instances" and "an active
server system monitor configured to: register the plurality of entities," and
"monitor the registered plurality of entities" (claim 1 ).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Wang
1. Wang discloses monitoring and verifying software drivers,
wherein a driver verifier sets up tests for specified drivers and monitors the
driver's behavior (Abst.). Figure 2 is reproduced below:
3
Appeal2015-005556
Application 12/974,635
Us.er
lnlerfacQ
Registry
Kernel
Oriver
68 Re.Vocrorer
Driver Verifier
70
FIG. 2
KemelMode
Name Monitoring Type
Oriver Verify
Information Table
Figure 2 shows kernel 64 which maintains a copy 66 of the registry
for monitoring and verifying a driver (i-f 41 ).
Girardeau
2. Girardeau discloses in-home local area networking for content such as
multimedia (col. 1, 11. 7-9), wherein Figure 1 is reproduced below:
4
Appeal2015-005556
Application 12/974,635
Figure 1 discloses a pictorial representation of a multimedia client
server system which includes multimedia server module 12, client modules
34, 35, 38, 40, and 42 that are coupled to clients 25, 26, 28, 30, and 32 and a
plurality of multimedia sources (col. 1, 1. 63 to col. 2, 1. 1 ). The multimedia
server module 12 may be a stand-alone device, or incorporated in a satellite
receiver, set-top box, cable box, HDTV tuner, and the like (col. 2, 11. 50-
53). The multimedia server module 12 and each of the client modules 34,
36, 38, 40 and 42 each include a transceiver that operates to send and receive
data via the communication path (col. 2, 11. 59---62). In the multimedia server
module 12, a transceiver module produces an RF signal and wirelessly
transmits the RF signal to a client device through a client module (col. 5, 11.
17-27).
IV. ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellant. We do not consider arguments
5
Appeal2015-005556
Application 12/974,635
which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Appeal Brief
so that we deem any such arguments as waived. 37 C.F.R. §
41.37( c )(1)(iv)(2012).
Although Appellant concedes Wang teaches "monitoring" of system
drivers, Appellants contend that Examiner acknowledges that Wang "does
not teach a home media server ... "(App. Br. 12). Appellant then contends
"[t]he multimedia sources taught by Girardeau are not a plurality of entities
executed by the home media server" (id.). According to Appellant, there is
no support for the Examiner's finding that, in Girardeau, "the home media
server executes the drivers, or that the drivers are configured to provide
media content instances to the clients" (id., emphasis omitted). Appellant
also contends the references do not discuss "registering a plurality of
entities" (id.).
We have considered all of Appellant's arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellant's contentions regarding the
Examiner's rejection of the claims. We agree with the Examiner's findings,
and find no error with the Examiner's conclusion that the claims would have
been obvious over the combined teachings.
We note Appellant does not contest but rather agree with the
Examiner's finding that Wang teaches "monitoring" of entities such as
system drivers (App. Br. 12). Although Appellant contends the references
do not discuss "registering" entities (id.), we agree with the Examiner's
finding that, in Wang, "drivers are enter[ed] or recorded in the registry" and
thus Wang teaches (or at least suggests) "registering of the plurality of
entities" (Ans. 3, FF 1). That is, we agree with the Examiner's conclusion
"[the] broadest reasonable interpretation of 'register/registering', by
6
Appeal2015-005556
Application 12/974,635
definition is to enter or record on an official list or directory'' (Ans. 3), and
we are unpersuaded that the Examiner's interpretation of
"register/registering" is overly broad or unreasonable. On this record, we
find no error with the Examiner's reliance on Wang for teaching and/or
suggesting "an active server system monitor configured to: register the
plurality of entities," and "monitor the registered plurality of entities" (id.).
Although Appellant contends Wang "does not teach a home media
server ... "(App. Br. 12), we note the Examiner's obviousness rejection is
based on the combined teachings and suggestions of Wang, Girardeau, and
Grover. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, we find no error with the Examiner's reliance on Girardeau for
disclosing or at least suggesting "entities" executed by a "home media
server" (Ans. 4). In particular, we agree with the Examiner's finding that
Girardeau teaches "clients ... connected to a multimedia server module
which maybe a stand alone device or incorporated in [a device] that provides
media from different devices ... to the clients" and module elements
"receiving request from clients for media content and then providing the
media content to the client" (id.). That is, Girardeau discloses client
modules that are coupled to client devices and multimedia sources, wherein
the multimedia server module and the client modules each include a
transceiver that operates to send and receive data such that a transceiver of
the multimedia server module produces and wirelessly transmits data (media
content instances) to a client device through a client module (FF 2).
Accordingly, we are unconvinced of Examiner error in relying on Girardeau
7
Appeal2015-005556
Application 12/974,635
for disclosing or at least suggesting a "plurality of entities executed by the
home media server and configured to provide media content instances" as
recited in claim 1.
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claim 1 over the combined teachings of Wang and Girardeau, in
further view of Grover.
As for independent claim 10, Appellant merely contends "claim 10
includes essentially identical recitations to those discussed above in claim 1"
(App. Br. 13). For the same reason discussed above, claim 10 falls with
claim 1.
As for independent claim 17, Appellant repeats that "[t]he multimedia
sources taught by Girardeau are not a plurality of entities executed by the
home media server as recited in claim 1" and adds that "they are clearly not
client handlers associated respectively with the plurality of clients" (App.
Br. 14). However, the Examiner finds and we agree Girardeau discloses
module elements which are "module/software which are used to receive
request for content from each of the plurality of client[ s] and encode and
sends the content to the requesting client" (Ans. 7; FF 3). Accordingly, we
find no error with the Examiner's finding that Girardeau discloses or at least
suggests "client handlers" which the Examiner interprets as "programs that
act as a data translator between the device and application ... "wherein the
"client handlers" are merely defined by the claim as "receiving and
providing content to client" (Ans. 6). On this record, we find no error with
the Examiner's rejection of claim 17 over the combination of Wang,
Girardeau, and Grover.
8
Appeal2015-005556
Application 12/974,635
Appellant contends Abdolbaghian does not teach or suggest the
limitations of dependent claim 5 (App. Br. 16). However, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that Abdolbaghian teaches applications that are not
being used, wherein, as the Examiner explains "when an application is not
being used, it would not be able to react or respond to any action/request"
(Ans.7). Thus, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's finding
Abdolbaghian discloses or at least suggests applications that are
"unresponsive" (id.).
As to dependent claim 6, Appellant merely traverses the Examiner's
taking of Official Notice by citing MPEP 2144.03 (App. Br. 17), and then
assert that "[i]t is improper to take official notice" of the contested
limitations (App. Br. 17-18). However, to adequately traverse the
Examiner's finding of Official Notice, Appellant's traversal must contain
information or argument that is adequate to create, on its face, a reasonable
doubt as to the circumstances justifying the Examiner's notice. See In re
Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971). That is, Appellant must specifically
point out the supposed errors in the Examiner's action, which would include
stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or
well-known in the art. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.11 l(b ); see also MPEP § 2144.03.
Here, Appellant's contention contains no information or argument to create
on its face, a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances justifying the
official notice. More specifically, the allegation does not explain why the
noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in
the art. On this record, Appellant has not adequately traversed the Official
Notice.
9
Appeal2015-005556
Application 12/974,635
Nevertheless, the Examiner provides several references as
documentary evidence that the noticed fact is well-known (Ans. 8). We note
Appellant does not provide arguments against these references in the Reply
Brief as to the noticed fact. Accordingly, on this record, we are unpersuaded
of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 6 as being obvious over the
combination of references.
Appellant does not provide any arguments with respect to the other
pending claims. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the rejections of those
claims.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
10