Ex Parte Palli

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 24, 2014

11499183 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SRIKANTH PALLI
____________________

Appeal 2011-009980
Application 11/499,183
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-009980
Application 11/499,183

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 3-13, and 15-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

STATEMENT OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.1

THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a method and system to
initiate streaming of a multimedia content message (Spec., para. [0001]).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A system comprising:
a receiving module to receive a stream that includes a
multimedia content message and a recipient list including a
recipient email address identifying a first recipient; and
a multimedia module:
to store the stream in a multimedia content file,
to generate a multimedia retrieval email message
that includes a stream identifier that identifies the stream,
and
to communicate the multimedia retrieval email
message, over a network, to the email address of the first
recipient, the stream identifier of the multimedia retrieval
email message being selectable to enable streaming of
the multimedia content message, over the network, to the
first recipient;

1 Our decision will refer to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed
December 9, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed March 3,
2011).
Appeal 2011-009980
Application 11/499,183

3
wherein the receiving module and the multimedia module are
implemented with one or more processor-based machines.

THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 15, and 17-212 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Gupta (US 6,917,965 B2, iss. Jul. 12, 2005).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Gupta and Adams (US 2006/0031412 A1, pub. Feb. 9, 2006).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Gupta and Singh (US 7,257,201 B2, iss. Aug. 14, 2007).

ANALYSIS
Anticipation
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3-5 and 7-9
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Gupta fails to
disclose “a system having a multimedia module and a receiving module for
receiving a stream, storing the stream, and subsequently streaming the stored
stream to another as claimed” (Br. 14-15). Specifically, Appellant argues
that Gupta fails to disclose the claimed “receiving module” because it does
not receive a stream in “a flow of data in real time from a source as it is
recorded or as it is to be presented” (Br. 14-15).

2 Both the Examiner and Appellant indicate that claims 1, 3-5, 7-15, and
17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Gupta (Ans. 4,
cf. Br. 9), however, claim 14 is canceled; thus, the rejection should properly
refer to claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 15, and 17-21.
Appeal 2011-009980
Application 11/499,183

4
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because it is not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 1 does not recite that the
“receiving module” receives a stream in real-time; instead, the claim merely
recites “[a] system comprising: a receiving module to receive a stream.”
We find nothing in the Specification, including the claim language, to
require that the “receiving module” be limited to receiving a stream in real-
time.
During examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and claim language should
be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Here, the term, “stream,” as reasonably broadly construed, covers
both a stream received in real-time and a stored stream. Although the
Specification discloses narrower embodiments, we find nothing in the
Specification, including the claim language, to preclude this broad, but
reasonable construction. See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc.,
418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (while the specification can be
examined for proper context of a claim term, limitations from the
specification will not be imported into the claims).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Gupta meets the
limitations of claim 1, under a broad, but reasonable construction (Ans. 4
and 9-10, citing Gupta, col, 14, ll. 21-32, col. 16, ll. 24-26, and figs. 1
and 10).
Gupta is directed to a system for presenting multimedia content to a
user, including an annotation server that can transmit multimedia content to
Appeal 2011-009980
Application 11/499,183

5
a recipient using email (Abs.). Gupta describes that its system generates an
email message which includes a user-selectable identifier for accessing
multimedia content located at streaming media server 11 where it can be
streamed to a user (col. 14, ll. 21-32). And Gupta further discloses that its
streaming media server stores media stream content as files in a database
and is in communication with annotation server 10, email server 13, and
clients 15 via communication network 16 (col. 3, l. 62 – col. 4, l. 4;
see fig. 1).
Appellant argues that “Gupta describes an email that is communicated
from the annotation server (or attached email server) to a client machine, to
inform a user of a new annotation” but does not “describe a receiving
module, which is part of a system containing a multimedia module, to
receive a stream that includes a multimedia content message as claimed”
(Br. 16). However, we agree with the Examiner that Gupta discloses that a
user receives streaming media content from an email that includes a link or
target identifier, such as a uniform resource locator that identifies the media
content and allows the media to be streamed to the user (col. 14, ll. 21-32).
As such, Gupta discloses receiving a stream that includes a multimedia
content message.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We also will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of dependent claims 3-5 and 7-9, which were not separately argued.
Independent claims 10 and 20 and dependent claims 11-13, 15, and 17-19
Appellant argues that independent claims 10 and 20 are allowable for
the same reasons as set forth with respect to claim 1 (Br. 16). We are not
persuaded for the reasons set forth above that the Examiner erred in rejecting
Appeal 2011-009980
Application 11/499,183

6
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Therefore, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for the
same reasons. We also will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 11-13, 15, and 17-19, each of which depends from one of claims 10
and 20, and were not separately argued.
Independent claim 21
Appellant argues that independent claim 21 is allowable for the same
reasons as set forth with respect to claim 1 (Br. 16). Appellant also asserts
that “Gupta does not describe or suggest a ‘persistent connection between a
client machine and a first means [to receive a stream],’” as recited by
claim 21 (Br. 16-17).
Appellant’s assertion does not rise to the level of a separate argument
for patentability. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(holding that the Board reasonably interpreted 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii)
as requiring “more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art”). Even so, we agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 10) that the “persistent connection,” recited by claim 21,
reads on the HTTP connection utilized for communication between the
different devices of the Gupta system (col. 3, ll. 52-61 and col. 4, ll. 14-28;
see also fig. 1).
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appeal 2011-009980
Application 11/499,183

7
Obviousness
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from independent claim 1. Appellant does not
present any argument for the separate patentability of this claim except to
assert that Adams fails to cure the alleged deficiencies of Gupta, and that
dependent claim 6 is, therefore, allowable based on its dependence on
independent claim 1 (Br. 17).
We are not persuaded, for the reasons set forth above, that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Therefore,
we will sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the
same reasons.
Claim 16
Claim 16 depends from independent claim 10. Appellant does not
present any argument for the separate patentability of claim 16 except to
assert that Singh fails to cure the alleged deficiencies of Gupta, and that
claim 16 is, therefore, allowable based on its dependence on independent
claim 10 (Br. 17).
We are not persuaded, for the reasons set forth above, that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Therefore,
we will sustain the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the
same reasons.

Appeal 2011-009980
Application 11/499,183

8
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3-13, and 15-21 under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a) 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

mls