13472051 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2016)

Ex Parte Robertson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 22, 2016

13472051 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/472,051 05/15/2012 27045 7590 ERICSSON INC 6300 LEGACY DRIVE MIS EVR 1-C-11 PLANO, TX 75024 08/24/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Mark Robertson 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. P36127-US1 4009 EXAMINER MARANDI, JAMES R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2421 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/24/2016 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): kara.coffman@ericsson.com kathryn.lopez@ericsson.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARK ROBERTSON and CHRIS PHILLIPS Appeal2015-003178 Application 13/4 72,051 Technology Center 2400 Before HUNG H. BUI, NABEEL U. KHAN, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Office Action rejecting claims 1-22, which are all of the claims pending on appeal. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 2 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. App. Br. 1. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed August 4, 2014 ("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed January 20, 2015 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed November 20, 2014 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed March 13, 2014 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed May 15, 2012 ("Spec."). Appeal2015-003178 Application 13/4 72,051 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to "a smart stream delivery server, a system, and methods for" assembling a mix of multimedia services to be delivered, via one or more networks, to a premise of a subscriber based in part on a subscriber policy. Spec. 3:17-19, 4:5-8. Claims 1, 10, 12, and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants' invention, as reproduced with disputed limitations emphasized below: 1. A smart stream delivery server for assembling a mix of services which are to be delivered over at least one network to a premises of a subscriber, the smart stream delivery server compnsmg: a processor; and a memory that stores processor-executable instructions where the processor interfaces with the memory and executes the processor-executable instructions to enable following: receive a request for a particular service from a device associated with the subscriber; assemble the mix of services which are to be delivered over the at least one network to the premises of the subscriber based on the received request, and on at least one or more parameters, where one parameter is a subscriber policy which is provided by the subscriber and comprises: equipment priorities for a list of devices associated with the subscriber; and [sic] service priorities for a plurality of services which are available for consumption by the devices; and transmit the assembled mix of services. App. Br. 12 (Claims App.). 2 Appeal2015-003178 Application 13/4 72,051 E'xaminer;s References and Rejections (1) Claims 1-8 and 12-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (US 7,480,701 B2; issued Jan. 20, 2009) ("Smith"). Final Act. 5-12. (2) Claims 9-11 and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith and Zuberi (US Publication 200710177 610 Al; Aug. 2, 2007). Ans. 12-20. ISSUE Based on Appellants' arguments, the issue presented on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in finding Smith discloses the disputed limitation: "assemble the mix of services which are to be delivered over the at least one network to the premises of the subscriber based on the received request, and on at least one or more parameters, where one parameter is a subscriber policy which is provided by the subscriber," as recited in independent claims 1 and 12. App. Br. 6-10; Reply Br. 2--4. ANALYSIS Â§ 102(b) Rejection of Claims 1--8 and 12-19 based on Smith With respect to independent claims 1 and 12, the Examiner finds Smith teaches a smart stream delivery server, shown in Figure 3, comprising, inter alia: "assemble the mix of services which are to be delivered over the at least one network to the premises of the subscriber based on the received request, and on at least one or more parameters, where one parameter is a subscriber policy which is provided by the subscriber," in the context of service collection 200, shown in Figure 2, for delivery of 3 Appeal2015-003178 Application 13/4 72,051 services to clients, via distribution network 300, based on different authorization levels and rules set by those clients. Final Act. 5-6 (citing Smith 3:37---6:65). Smith's Figure 3 is reproduced below. e;y~~ :: UO??! ..._.-- :: ~ MOVIE r-sE~~:icE-ft.;;;-- l CHCAno;, l ENG:Â·f-J:E .::l06, ' ! ____________ J ............. : \ ! I : } ! ~- ____ ,.,..... ! CH.'l.NNEL 4 ' SERVICES COLLECTION ,I 200 â€¢ FULLSCREEtJ M.OVIE FULL SCREEN PREVIEVV Smith's Figure 3 sho\~1s a multi-media system to deliver various - 322 multimedia services to clients (subscribers) based on different authorization levels and rules customized to meet conditions of each individual client, e.g., hardware conditions and availability of associated subsystems. Smith 5:52- 65, 6:30-37, 8:61-9:3, 12: 11-25. For example, Smith discloses: multiple display contexts are created for presenting a channel's multimedia content to a user. Each display context is selected to respond to a client condition. Exemplary client conditions are the availability of subsystems to display the content, and authorizations to receive the content. The screen size of a video presentation and the resolution (or level of definition) of a video presentation are particularly dependent on hardware and/or software subsystems in a client device. For example, a full screen high definition display context intended for a large television may be unnecessary for a UI display of a cellphone. Thus, in one 4 Appeal2015-003178 Application 13/4 72,051 implementation, a display context is the product of the intended screen size, or "intent," and an authorization level for receiving content in a resolution suitable for the screen size. Smith 12: 11-25 (emphasis added). Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Smith discloses the disputed limitation: "assemble the mix of services which are to be delivered over the at least one network to the premises of the subscriber based on the received request, and on at least one or more parameters, where one parameter is a subscriber policy which is provided by the subscriber," as recited in independent claims 1 and 12. App. Br. 6-10; Reply Br. 2--4. In particular, Appellants acknowledge Smith's "intended display size" is part of an "intent parameter" determined by a "default setting" and/or by rules "as determined by a multimedia service provider or by a client 308 manufacturer." App. Br. 8-9 (citing Smith 5:62-65). However, Appellants argue ( 1) "such a 'default setting' is not something that is provided by the subscriber" and (2) the "rules" as disclosed by Smith are not "provided by the subscriber," as claimed. Id. at 9. Appellants further argue that Smith's device 308, shown in Figure 3, is a set-top box that does not, on its own, "perform actions such as purchasing services from a service provider" and, as such, is not and cannot be considered as the same as Appellants' claimed "subscriber." Reply Br. 2-3. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Instead, we find the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants' arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 18-19. As such, we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein. Id. For example, as recognized by the Examiner, Smith's rules are used to "govern which client conditions trigger particular display contexts ... 5 Appeal2015-003178 Application 13/4 72,051 preprogrammed into a service collection" and those client conditions are provided by a user (subscriber). Ans. 19 (citing Smith 9:2-3). Contrary to Appellants' argument, these client conditions are not actions performed by a set-top box 308, shown in Smith's Figure 3. Rather, Smith's rules refer to the user or subscriber's ability to control the "intent" parameter 210 and display contexts 214 for presenting a multimedia content. See Smith 11: 5- 1 7. According to Smith, the subscriber may ( 1) directly select which content to receive or (2) directly input or modify an authentication level or an "intent" parameter. See Smith 11 :23-36. For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that Smith discloses the disputed limitation of claims 1 and 12, and sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 12 and their respective dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, and 13-19, which Appellants do not argue separately. With respect to dependent claim 6, Appellants argue Smith does not teach "wherein another parameter is list of services which are currently being used or scheduled to be used by the devices." App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4. We disagree. As correctly recognized by the Examiner, Smith's "list of services," shown in Figure 2, refers to multimedia services available to a subscriber based on different levels of "intent" 210, authorization level 212, and context 214. Ans. 19-20 (citing Smith 5:20-35). In their reply, Appellants acknowledge Smith's Figure 2 describes (1) how the content is displayed, and (2) whether content is authorized, but argue Smith does not describe "any type of 'schedule' or 'currently being used' services, as claimed." Reply Br. 4. We are not persuaded because the multimedia services described in Smith's Figure 2 are shown, for example, in Figure 11, 6 Appeal2015-003178 Application 13/4 72,051 where a "list of services" is provided that "are currently being used or scheduled to be used by the devices," as recited in claim 6. With respect to the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 9--11 and 20-22, Appellants reiterate the same arguments presented against independent claims 1 and 12. App. Br. 9--10. For the same reasons discussed, we also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 9- 11 and 20-22. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) andÂ§ 103(a). DECISION As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-22. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7