Ex Parte Mountain

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 20, 2016

12344049 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/344,049 12/24/2008 Dale Llewelyn Mountain
70560 7590 05/24/2016
INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (EchoStar)
7010 E. COCHISE ROAD
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85253
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.
066.0187 (P2008-07-0004) 5472
EXAMINER
SAINT CYR, JEAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2016 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):
docketing@ifllaw.com
IPDEPT@echostar.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DALE LLEWEL YN MOUNTAIN
Appeal2014-007098
Application 12/344,049
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, JON M. JURGOVAN, and NABEEL U. KHAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4--7, and 9-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Eldon Tech. Ltd. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2014-007098
Application 12/344,049
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to:
A set top box for a television receiver [that] has a paired viewing
card. It is also coupled to a hard disc drive for the recording and
storage of received broadcasting. If the viewer has a full
subscription, the viewer is able to access and view subscription
broadcasting by way of the set top box. If the subscription is no
longer paid, different usage rights are associated with the set top
box so that, whilst the set top box can no longer access the
subscription broadcasting, the viewer is still able to access and
play any previously stored subscription programming.
Abstract.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below with key
limitations emphasized.
1. A method of controlling access to broadcast programming
by way of a local receiving device, wherein the local receiving
device is arranged to receive broadcast programming, and to
store broadcast programming,
the method comprising associating usage rights with the
receiving device, wherein the associated usage rights are stored
on an integrated circuit card, and wherein the receiving device
incorporates a card reading slot for receiving and reading the
integrated circuit card; and enabling the receiving device to
determine locally one of at least two different operating modes
in which it is to operate in dependence upon the usage rights
associated therewith,
the method comprising establishing that a required
subscription has been maintained, and if so, associating usage
rights so that the local receiving device is operated in a first
operating mode, in which the receiving device is enabled to
receive and store any broadcast programming received, and to
access stored programming, wherein in the first operating mode
the local receiving device is also enabled to receive broadcast
programming and provide the broadcast programming to a
presentation device for presentation,
2
Appeal2014-007098
Application 12/344,049
the method further comprising, if it is established that no
current subscription payments have been made changing the
usage rights such that the local receiver is changed to be operated
in a second operating mode in which the local receiving device
is denied access to the broadcast programming and so is unable
to receive the broadcast programming, and unable to provide the
broadcast programming to a presentation device for presentation,
but in the second operating mode the receiving device remains
able to access any broadcast programming which has been
previously stored locally.
REFERENCES and REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4--7, and 9-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Raverdy (US 2002/0069419 Al, June 6, 2002) and Park
(US 2006/0257102 Al, Nov. 16, 2006).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner relies upon Raverdy as teaching a second operating
mode in which "it is established that no current subscription payments have
been made ... [and] the local receiving device is denied access to the
broadcast programming ... but ... remains able to access any broadcast
programming which has been previously stored locally," as recited in claim
1. Specifically, the Examiner finds "when event server 13 8 determines that
the access rights of the particular user device 114 have expired, 0088; user
device 114 may preferably access local content that has previously been
stored by user device 114 into device content information 316 of device
memory, 0102." Final Act. 5-6 (citing Raverdy, Fig. 8); see also Ans. 13
("In other words the user would not be able to access content from the event
3
Appeal2014-007098
Application 12/344,049
server 138, however the VOD content stored locally would still be
available.").
Appellant contends "Raverdy teaches the opposite of what is claimed,
namely that ... previously recorded programming would be inaccessible."
App. Br. 9. According to Appellant:
Figure 9 clearly shows that there is no distinction made in the
process of Raverdy in accessing content in the various viewing
modes, i.e. broadcast video, video-on-demand and accessing
locally stored content, depending on access rights. In other
words, all modes of accessing content are available in Raverdy
or no modes of accessing content are available. Thus it follows
that there is "no second mode of operation" in Raverdy in which
user rights have expired where broadcast content is inaccessible,
but where previously stored local content is accessible.
App. Br. 10.
We agree with Appellant's arguments and are persuaded of Examiner
error. Figures 9 and 12 of Raverdy, and their corresponding description,
teach the steps of accessing and displaying locally stored content (Fig. 12,
steps 1212, 1216, and 1220), but these steps are performed only ifthe user is
connected to the server (Fig. 9, step 912) and logged in (Fig. 9, step 916).
Thus, we agree with Appellant that Raverdy does not distinguish between
accessing local content, accessing broadcast video, or accessing video on-
demand, all of which are only accessible after the user is connected to the
server and logged in. Further, although the Examiner finds that "VOD
content stored locally would still be available," even if other services were
not (Ans. 13), the Examiner's finding is not supported by evidence, i.e., a
citation to Raverdy or other evidence. See Ans. 13.
Accordingly, constrained by the record before us, we do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. For the same reasons, we
4
Appeal2014-007098
Application 12/344,049
also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 6, which is similarly
rejected. See Final Act. 8-9. Finally, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9-12, which depend from one of
independent claims 1 and 6.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--7, and 9-12 is reversed.
REVERSED
5