Ex Parte Sue et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2018

11782554 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111782,554 07/24/2007
141451 7590 03/20/2018
AT&T Legal Dept. - [HDP]
Attention: Patent Docketing, Room 2A-207
One AT&T Way
Bedminster, NJ 07921
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ranny Q. Sue
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.
DTV207043 7767
EXAMINER
RABOVIANSKI, JIVKA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RANNY Q. SUE and XAVIER D. RILEY
Appeal2017-001672
Application 11/782,554
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JASON V. MORGAN, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
43---60. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to establishing a first content
delivery network for a first type of user device and a second content delivery
network for a second type of user device, storing first content in a first
format associated with the first network and a second content associated
with the second network, generating a first content list for the first content
Appeal2017-001672
Application 11/782,554
delivery network, generating a second content list for the second content
delivery network, communicating the first content list to a first user device
through the first content delivery network and communicating the second
content list to a second user device through the second content delivery
network. Spec. para. 7.
Claim 43, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
43. A communication system for providing content from a
content processing system on a server side of the communication
system to a device side of the communication system, the
communication system comprising:
on the server side of the communication system,
a content repository storing first content in a first format
associated with a first type of device and second content in a
second format associated with a second type of device,
a content management system generating a first content
list corresponding to the first content and a second content list,
different from the first content list, corresponding to the second
content, wherein the content management system generates the
first content list and the second content list on the server side of
the communication system prior to the first content list and the
second content list being provided from the server side of the
communication system to the device side of the communication
system,
a first content delivery network providing the first
content list, as generated by the content management system on
the server side of the communication system, from the server
side of the communication system to a first device on the device
side of the communication system, wherein the first device
corresponds to the first type of device; and
a second content delivery network providing the second
content list, different from the first content list and as generated
by the content management system on the server side of the
communication system, from the server side of the
communication system to a second device on the device side of
2
Appeal2017-001672
Application 11/782,554
the communication system, wherein the second device
corresponds to the second type of device,
wherein the first content list and the second content list
include different content based on which content is available to
the first type of device and the second type of device,
respectively.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Walker US 2008/0141303 Al June 12, 2008
THE REJECTION
Claims 43---60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Walker.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that, based on the broadest reasonable
interpretation, Walker's disclosure of a list of programs in MPEG-4 format
reads on "first content list" and a list of programs in H.264 format reads on
"second content list" (Ans. 3--4 citing para. 130).
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Walker does not disclose the
limitation of "the first content list and the second content list include
different content based on which content is available to the first type of
device and the second type of device, respectively" as recited in claim 43.
App. Br. 7. Appellants respond that the MPEG-4 and the H.264 are formats
and do not constitute different lists of content as required by claim 43.
Reply Br. 4.
3
Appeal2017-001672
Application 11/782,554
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument. During prosecution,
claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation while reading
claim language in light of the Specification as it would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). First, we note that claim 43 requires a "first
content in a first format" and a "second content in a second format," and
thus, "content" and "format" are distinguishable terms. ''i\.ll words in a
claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against
the prior art" Jn re TVilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). The
Specification recites that "[t]he program guide may be a list of content
available through a communication means." Spec. para. 43. The
Specification also recites that various content can be converted to different
formats. See Spec. para. 32. Thus, under the broadest reasonable
interpretation standard, different content lists cannot reasonably be construed
as different formats.
Furthermore, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term "content"
also supports that content cannot be interpreted as format. In pertinent part,
the Microsoft Computer Dictionary, defines content as "[t]he meat of the
document, as opposed to the format or appearance" (copyrighted 2010).
Accordingly, the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 43 under 35 U.S.C
§ 102( e ). Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 43
and for the same reasons we do not sustain the rejections of claims 44---60.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 43---60 is reversed.
REVERSED
4