Ex Parte Setos

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 10, 2016

12644163 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/644,163 12/22/2009
78537 7590 08/12/2016
Cantor Colburn LLP - Fox Entertainment Group
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andrew G. Setos
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.
CA09/7861 (FEG0552US2) 5868
EXAMINER
RAHMAN, SHAWNCHOY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2438
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/12/2016 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):
usptopatentmail @cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW G. SETOS 1
Appeal2014-005291
Application 12/644, 163
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JOHN R. KENNY Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-3. Claims 4--8 are withdrawn from consideration.
App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies Fox Digital Enterprises, Inc, as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-005291
Application 12/644, 163
Invention
Appellant discloses a system for processing a universal media file
(Abstract), which is a file recognizable by a plurality of media platform
applications (Spec. i-f 14).
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
representative:
1. A system for processing a universal media file, the system
compnsmg:
a universal file recognition module that processes a
universal media file based on a key; and
a key protection module that provides the key based on a
business relationship.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Collazo (US 7,783,767 B2; Aug. 24, 2010) and
Kacker et al. (US 2004/0151308 Al; Aug. 5, 2004). Final Act. 5---6.
The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Collazo, Kacker, and Kiilerich et al. (US 7,801,847 B2;
Sept. 21, 2010). Final Act. 6-7.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Collazo and
Kacker teaches or suggests a "universal media file," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
2
Appeal2014-005291
Application 12/644, 163
appeal was taken. We have considered Appellant's arguments, but do not
find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Collazo' s medial file
conversion module 200 for universal media format 210 teaches or suggests a
universal mediafile. Final Act. 5 (citing, e.g., Collazo col. 8, 11. 12-20); see
also Ans. 3 (citing Collazo col. 14, 11. 22-30).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Collazo's universal
media format requires an encapsulated streaming media player, and is thus
not a universal media file. App. Br. 4. In particular, Appellant argues
Collazo's universal media format is directed to a specific file bundled with a
specific media player and "would not be universal to other media
applications because it has and requires its own specific, bundled media
application." Id.; see also Reply Br. 2.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive because they fail to
distinguish the claimed universal media file from a file in a universal media
format in the form of "an MPEG-4 Part 2 compatible video format, an
MPEG-4 Part 10 compatible video format, or a non-MPEG wavelet-based
codec, or another codec." Collazo col 14, 11. 28-30 (cited by Ans. 3).
MPEG video formats are well known, widely licensed standards set by the
Moving Pictures Experts Group (i.e., MPEG). Files in these formats are
recognizable by a plurality of media platform applications (i.e., any media
platform application that has properly implemented the relevant standards),
consistent with Appellants' description of a "universal media file" (see Spec.
i-f 14). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
3
Appeal2014-005291
Application 12/644, 163
Collazo and Kacker teaches or suggests a "universal media file," as recited
in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1, and claim 2, which Appellant does not argue separately.
Appellant does not provide additional arguments with respect to claim 3
other than to contend that Kiilerich fails to cure the alleged deficiency of
Callazo and Kacker. Because Callazo and Kacker are not deficient, we also
sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 3.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
4