Ex Parte McCoy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 6, 2018

12982338 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2018)

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.
12/982,338 12/30/2010 Charles McCoy 201003532.02 8179
51518 7590 03/08/2018
MAYF.R Rr WTT T TAMS PC"
EXAMINER
55 Madison Avenue CONTINO SAUMBY, KRISTA
Suite 400
Morristown, NJ 07960 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/08/2018 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):
docket @ mwpatentlaw. com
mwolf @ mwpatentlaw.com
kwilliams@mwpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES McCOY, LING JUN WONG, and TRUE XIONG
Appeal 2017-009201
Application 12/982,3381
Technology Center 2400
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1—20. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Sony Corporation and
Sony Network Entertainment International LLC. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-009201
Application 12/982,338
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention generally relates to “allow a user to control
content playback device settings from a second display, without disturbing
or disrupting content playback.” Spec. 1 5. Independent claim 1 is directed
to a method. App. Br. 15.
Claim 1 recites (emphasis added)
1. A method of controlling presentation of content on a
content playback device by controlling settings of the content
playback device using a second display, comprising:
i. instantiating an application on a second display, the
second display coupled to a content playback device, the content
playback device having an authentication credential used for
accessing content, the application configured to at least partially
control content playback on the content playback device, the
content not from the second display, the second display
controlling content playback on the content playback device
through a proxy server which presents to a content provider the
authentication credential of the content playback device, such
that the second display appears to the content provider as an
authenticated content playback device, the application
configured to further control presentation of content on the
content playback device by controlling at least one setting of the
content playback device;
ii. on a user interface of the second display, the user
interface indicating a setting of the content playback device,
adjusting a value of a content playback device setting; and
iii. transmitting a signal to cause the content playback
device setting to change to the adjusted value without disrupting
content playback,
iv. wherein the lack of disrupting occurs by the adjusting
of the value of the setting on the second display and not on the
content playback device, such that viewing of a content item is
not temporarily suspended during settings adjustments, nor is a
2
Appeal 2017-009201
Application 12/982,338
user interface for settings adjustments displayed on top of
content.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 6, 9, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Collart et al. (US 2009/0150553 Al, published June 11,
2009) (“Collart”), Shu et al. (US 2009/0113539 Al, published Apr. 30,
2009) (“Shu”), and Lee et al. (US 2011/0069081 Al, published Mar. 24,
2011) (“Lee”). Ans. 2.
Claims 2 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Collart, Shu, Lee, and Hatakenaka (US 7,213,089 B2,
issued May 1, 2007). Ans. 8.
Claims 3, 4, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Collart, Shu, Lee, and Card (US 2009/0089826 Al,
published Apr. 2, 2009). Ans. 10.
Claims 5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Collart, Shu, Lee, and Dacosta (US 2005/0108751 Al,
published May 19, 2005). Ans. 12.
Claims 10-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Collart, Shu, Lee, and Cruz et al. (US 2011/0283321 Al,
published Nov. 17, 2011) (“Cruz”). Ans. 13.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Collart, Shu, Lee, and Torimaru (US 2008/0229351 Al, published Sept.
18,2008). Ans. 16.
Claims 17—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Collart, Shu, Lee, and Rudolph et al. (US 2008/0163286
Al, published July 3, 2008) (“Rudolph”). Ans. 17.
3
Appeal 2017-009201
Application 12/982,338
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “the second display controlling content playback on
the content playback device through a proxy server which presents to a
content provider the authentication credential of the content playback
device, such that the second display appears to the content provider as an
authenticated content playback device."
Appellants contend that Shu teaches the “completion of the
authentication procedure,” but that Shu’s “service network NO knows of the
unauthenticated nature ofUE2, its use in combination with UE1, and thus
performs many additional steps unique to this situation.” App. Br. 7
(emphasis added). More specifically, Appellants argue that Shu’s UE2 “is
allowed to access the service network but itself does not appear to the
service network NO as an authenticated content playback device.'1'’ App. Br.
8 (emphasis added); see Reply Br. 2—3.
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is “broad enough to read on
the content provider being aware of an initial authentication status of the
second display (even if second display is initially unauthenticated), as long
as subsequently, at some later point, the second display appears to the
content provider as an authenticated content playback device.'1'’ Ans. 19
(emphasis added). We further agree with the Examiner’s findings that Shu’s
teachings that UE1 goes through steps so that an authentication/authorization
message is passed onto UE2 which then has access to the network NO
teaches “when the user equipment UE2 (or UE B) is presented to the service
network NO, it does so, using the authentication credential(s) of UE1, and
thus appears to the service network NO as an authenticated content playback
4
Appeal 2017-009201
Application 12/982,338
device, which meets the claim.” Ans. 22; see Ans. 4 (citing Shu Figs. 3, 4,
1126-30, 44, 54—60).
Appellants’ Specification does not provide any further limiting
definition for a second display appearing as an authenticated content
playback device. Claim 1 does not require any timing element for the
second display appearing as an authenticated playback device. Instead, the
claimed second display appearing as an authenticated content playback
device, in light of Appellants’ Specification, does not preclude the second
display starting unauthorized and unauthenticated but then acquiring
authorization or authentication of access.
As cited by the Examiner (Ans. 4), Shu teaches “/ajfter receiving the
information about [the] unauthorization, the UE2 sends again to the
authentication proxy sub-module of the gateway system an access
authentication request, which includes some private information of the
UE2f then the “service network NO returns an authorization response to the
authentication proxy sub-module,” which “sends the authentication
information to the UE2, to complete the authentication of the access from
the UE2 to the service network NO, so that the UE2 may access the service
network NO.” Shu 152 (emphases added).
As such, consistent with the claimed second display appearing as an
authenticated content playback device, broadly encompassing a second
display starting unauthorized but then acquiring authorization or
authentication of access, Shu teaches UE2 starting unauthorized and then
completing authentication of access for UE2. Appellants have not provided
persuasive evidence that second display appearing as authenticated, as
5
Appeal 2017-009201
Application 12/982,338
required by claim 1, is not taught or otherwise suggested by Shu’s
authentication of access for UE2.
Appellants further contend that Shu’s UE2 does not control content
playback on UE1, and Collart’s teachings of separate content playback
device and second display do not teach that a second display controls
content playback on a content playback device. App. Br. 12.
Appellants’ argument against Shu separately from Collart does not
persuasively rebut the combination made by the Examiner. One cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981).
Specifically, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Collart’s
secondary device 124 teaches the claimed “second display,” Collart’s
primary device 122 teaches the claimed “content playback device,” Collart’s
server 130 teaches the claimed “proxy server,” and Collart’s secondary
devices are used to navigate content at the primary devices. Ans. 23—24
(citing Collart Figs. 1, 2,1106); see Ans. 3^4. The Examiner finds the
combination of Shu with Collart has the “benefit of enabling devices in the
customer premises that do not have authentication credential capability.”
Ans. 5. Appellants have not presented substantive arguments to address the
Examiner’s findings.
Appellants further contend that the Examiner “has not provided
sufficient reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the
references,” and it is “not clear what [Lee] has to do with Collart/Shu, or
why an expectation of success would be provided.” App. Br. 12—13.
6
Appeal 2017-009201
Application 12/982,338
The Examiner finds the combination of Lee, Collart, and Shu is
obvious “so that the any interface used to adjust settings of content shown on
a first device, is only displayed on the second device” and that it “overcomes
the problem of at least partially blocking some of the entertainment content
being shown on first device.” Ans. 7 (citing Lee 7, 11, 48); see Ans. 25—
26. Appellants have not presented substantive arguments to address the
Examiner’s findings.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent
claim 1, as well as the rejections of independent claims 10 and 14 which
have limitations commensurate in scope with claim 1, and dependent claims
2—9, 11—13, and 15—20, not separately argued. See App. Br. 13—14.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1—20 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
7