Ex Parte Phillips et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 30, 201612769935 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 121769,935 04/29/2010 Andrew V. Phillips 71739 7590 09/01/2016 Concert Technology Corporation 20 Depot Street Suite 2A Peterborough, NH 03458 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. CT-ITV-019/US (P438) 8698 EXAMINER TEKLE, DANIEL T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2481 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/01/2016 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): uspto.correspondence@sceneralabs.com uspto _alert@concerttechnology.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDREW V. PHILLIPS, SCOTT CUR TIS, and WAN A. PONS Appeal2015-00689 Application 12/769,935 Technology Center 2400 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ELENI MANTIS MER CADER, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3 through 9, and 11 through 35, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. Appeal2015-00689 Application 12/769,935 Il'.JVENTI ON The invention is directed to a media broker which is communicatively coupled to one or more renderers. The media broker retrieves at least one resume point record associated with a user and a media item and enables viewing the media item at the renderer beginning at the at least one resume point. See Abstract of Appellants' Specification. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. A media broker comprising: a communication interface communicatively coupling the media broker to one or more renderers; and a controller associated with the communication interface adapted to: receive a request comprising a user identifier and a media item identifier from a renderer to play a media item identified by the media item identifier; retrieve a plurality of resume points associated with the user identifier and the media item; and enable viewing the media item at the renderer beginning at a selected one of the plurality of resume points. REFERENCE AND REJECTION AT ISSUE The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3 through 9, and 11through35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (U.S. 7,650,621 2 Appeal2015-00689 Application 12/769,935 B2; Jan. 19, 2010) ("Thomas") and Tanaka (US 8,340,508 B2; Dec. 25, 2012). Answer 2---6. 1 ISSUES Appellants argue on pages 12 through 20 of the Appeal Brief and pages 4 through 6 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner's rejection of these claims is in error. These arguments present us with the following issues: 1) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Thomas and Tanaka teach a request comprising a user identifier and a media item identifier as recited in representative claim 1? 2) Did the Examiner err in combining the teachings of Thomas and Tanaka as the combination would render Thomas's device unsatisfactory for its intended purpose? 3) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Thomas and Tanaka teach a plurality of resume points associated with the user identifier and the media item recited in representative claim 1 ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner's rejections and the Examiner's response to the Appellants' arguments. Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3 through 9, and 11 through 35. 1 Throughout this Opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated February 5, 2014, Reply Brief dated October 13, 2014, and the Examiner's Answer Footnote continued on next page. 3 Appeal2015-00689 Application 12/769,935 With respect to the first issue, Appellants argue that representative claim 1 recites a request comprising a user identifier and a media item identifier, and that Thomas indicates a user must first log in and then the user can retrieve the content. App Br. 14. Thus, Appellants contend "Thomas teaches that the request only contains [the] media identifier." App. Br. 14. The Examiner provides a detailed response to Appellants' arguments finding Thomas teaches an embodiment where if the user has not previously logged in, the user is asked to login when making a resume request, thus teaching a request with the user identifier and the media identifier. Answer 9-10 (citing Thomas col. 10, 1. 61 through col. 111. 19). We concur with the Examiner, the cited teachings of Thomas identify that the request to resume, by including login information with the request for media content, teach and suggest the claimed feature of a request including user identifier and media identifier. Accordingly, Appellants' arguments directed to the first issue have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection. With respect to the second issue, Appellants state that Thomas teaches a single stored media position at which a user can resume rendering the media. App. Br. 18. Appellants argue that changing the device to allow retrieval from a plurality of media positions would change the principle operation of Thomas and render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. App Br. 18. We agree with Appellants that Thomas teaches a storing single point in the media at which the user can resume rendering the media. However, we disagree that modifying the teachings of Thomas such that mailed on August 13, 2014. 4 Appeal2015-00689 Application 12/769,935 there are plural points would change the principle of operation and render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. The purpose of Thomas is to provide the ability for a user to resume the rendering of a media object, which remains if the device is modified such that there is more than one position that rendering can be resumed. Accordingly, Appellants' arguments directed to the second issue have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection. With respect to the third issue, Appellants state that representative claim 1 recites a plurality of resume points associated with the user identifier and the media item. Appellants argue Tanaka does not teach that resume points are presented to the user and that Tanaka does not teach using a user identifier, thus Appellants conclude that Tanaka does not teach the claimed resume points. App Br. 19-20; Reply Br. 5-6. The Examiner, in response, finds Tanaka teaches plural resume points, and that this teaching was cited merely to add plural resume points to the device of Thomas. Answer 10 (citing Tanaka col. 6, 11. 29--41, Fig 2 and Fig. 3). We concur with the Examiner that Figure 3 of Tanaka depicts several resume points associated with a media object. Although, as Appellants' assert, Tanaka does not identify these resume points are associated with a user identifier, the Examiner has shown that Thomas does associate resume points with a user. Thus, the Examiner has shown Thomas, in combination with Tanaka, teaches the disputed limitation. Accordingly, Appellants' arguments directed to the third issue have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection. As Appellants' arguments directed to these three issues have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, we sustain the 5 Appeal2015-00689 Application 12/769,935 rejection of claim l and claims 3 through 9, and 11 through 35, grouped with claim 1. DECISION We sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3 through 9, and 11 through 35 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation