Ex Parte Talbert

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2017

13230039 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/230,039 09/12/2011 Michael Talbert 20110477 1481
25537 7590
VERIZON
PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
EXAMINER
HOSSAIN, FARZANA E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2017 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):
patents @ verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL TALBERT
Appeal 2016-0028591
Application 13/230,039
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, AMBER L. HAGY, and SHARON FENICK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—8, 10-15, and 23—28, which are all of the
pending claims.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies Verizon Communications Inc. as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 2.)
2 Claims 9 and 16—22 have been canceled. (App. Br. 21—23.)
Appeal 2016-002859
Application 13/230,039
Introduction
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to “a streaming device that may
broadcast multimedia content, such as television signals, to electronic
devices in a customer premises.” (Spec. 112.) According to Appellant,
“[t]he streaming device may provide a cost effective solution for a television
provider to provide additional viewing choices for a customer premises,
without requiring the television provider to update the STBs in the customer
premises.” (Spec. 113.)
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1,11, and 25 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below
with the disputed limitation italicized, is exemplary of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A device comprising:
a tuner to:
receive a signal corresponding to a plurality of
television channels, and
extract a second signal corresponding to a selected
channel, in a first encoded format, from the plurality of
television channels;
a media processor to transcode the extracted second
signal, in the first encoded format, to a second encoded
format;
a processor to:
authenticate a portable destination device, that
connects to the device, as a portable destination device that is
authorized to receive at least some of the plurality of television
channels, the authentication including authenticating the
portable destination device based on a determination that the
portable destination device is within a customer premises of a
subscriber to the plurality of television channels, the
determination that the portable destination device is within the
2
Appeal 2016-002859
Application 13/230,039
customer premises of the subscriber including determining
whether the portable destination device is in communication
with a local wireless router that is associated with an account
corresponding to the customer premises, and
receive, from the portable destination device, channel
selection information that identifies the selected channel; and
a communication interface to:
connect to the local wireless router; and
transmit the second signal, in the second encoded
format, to the portable destination device, via the local wireless
router.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Laksono
Cholas et al.
Wang et al.
Howarter et al.
Robbins et al.
US 2003/0156218 Al
US 2008/0313691 Al
US 2008/0320543 Al
US 2010/0169940 Al
US 2012/0077463 Al
Aug. 21,2003
Dec. 18, 2008
Dec. 25, 2008
July 1, 2010
Mar. 29, 2012
“QuickTime and beyond” Apple.com. Web. Accessed 3 Dec. 2012 (from
archive dated July 5, 2010). (hereafter “Apple”).
3
Appeal 2016-002859
Application 13/230,039
REJECTIONS3
(1) Claims 1, 2, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Laksono and Robbins. (Final Act. 5—8.)
(2) Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laksono, Robbins, Wang, and Apple. (Final Act. 8—9.)
(3) Claims 4, 6, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Laksono, Robbins, and Cholas. (Final Act. 9-11.)
(4) Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laksono, Robbins, and Howarter. (Final Act. 11.)
(5) Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laksono, Robbins, and Wang. (Final Act. 11—12.)
(6) Claims 11, 13, 15, 24, 25, and 28 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Laksono, Wang, and Robbins.
(Final Act. 12—17.)
(7) Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Laksono, Wang, Robbins, and Apple. (Final Act. 18.)
(8) Claims 14 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Laksono, Wang, Robbins, and Cholas. (Final Act.
18-19.)
3 Although the Examiner and Appellant each make reference to claims “1—8,
10-15, and 23—28” standing rejected under the Final Action dated March 26,
2015 (Final Act. 1; App. Br. 19), the Examiner does not articulate a rationale
to support the rejection of claim 26. However, claim 26 contains the same
limitations recited in claim 13 and we will treat it as having been rejected for
the same reasons discussed relative to claim 13. Nevertheless, because we
do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1,11, and 25, the rejection
of claims 13 and 26 is also reversed.
4
Appeal 2016-002859
Application 13/230,039
ISSUE4
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Laksono
and Robbins teaches or suggests
the authentication including authenticating the portable
destination device based on a determination that the portable
destination device is within a customer premises of a subscriber
to the plurality of television channels, the determination that the
portable destination device is within the customer premises of
the subscriber including determining whether the portable
destination device is in communication with a local wireless
router that is associated with an account corresponding to the
customer premises[,]
as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claims 11 and 25.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Laksono teaches or suggests the limitations of
claim 1, except “authenticating a portable destination device based on a
determination that the portable destination device is within a customer
premises,” for which the Examiner relies on Robbins. (Final Act. 6—7; see
also Final Act. 3—4.)
Appellant argues the Examiner’s findings regarding Robbins are in
error because “Robbins ... is not related to authentication of a device.”
(App. Br. 8.) Rather, according to Appellant, the portions of Robbins cited
by the Examiner “relate to inferring presence of a mobile device based on
4 Appellant’s arguments raise additional issues, which we do not address
because our determination of the stated issue is dispositive of Appellant’s
arguments on appeal.
5
Appeal 2016-002859
Application 13/230,039
the mobile device registering with a network entity that services a particular
location.” {Id. at 9.)
We agree with Appellant. Robbins teaches determining whether a
mobile device is within an area of service of a network entity that services a
target location (such as a user’s home):
[W]hen subservient mobile device 106 enters (or leaves an area
of service (e.g., target location 110) covered by network entity
108, then network entity 108 can “sense” such and provide
appropriate information (e.g., presence information 104) to
presence component 102 as a result. In this case, “sensing” the
presence of subservient mobile device 106 can be established
when subservient mobile device 106 registers with network
entity 108 in order to utilize network entity 108 as a
communications portal to a core network of the wireless
communications network.
(Robbins 136.) Robbins further teaches that, once the presence of a mobile
device is “sensed,” information may be sent to that device (such as a
reminder for a child returning home to do a chore). (See Robbins 12, 35,
6.)
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that Robbins does not
teach or suggest “authenticating” the mobile device, as required by claim 1.
(App. Br. 8—9; Reply Br. 3 4.) As Appellant correctly notes, sensing the
presence of a mobile device, as taught by Robbins, is not the same as
“authenticating” that device, as claimed. (App. Br. 8—9; Reply Br. 3 4.)
The Examiner’s finding that the mobile device in Robbins “will need to be
on an authorized user list associated with the network entity” (Ans. 4 (citing
Robbins 1 55)) also does not support a finding that Robbins’ sensing of
device presence teaches “authenticating” the mobile device. In fact, the
presence of an authorization list in Robbins, which does not relate
6
Appeal 2016-002859
Application 13/230,039
authorization of a device to the status of the portable destination device in a
particular location, makes clear that Robbins’ sensing of device presence is
not authentication.
With regard to “an authorized user list,” Robbins clarifies that the user
of a mobile device “must be allowed to connect to the network with her
device via resident network equipment, e.g., femtocell 202.” (Robbins
1 55.) As Appellant argues, “[t]his sentence of Robbins merely describes a
technique via which an authorized mobile device may connect to a femtocell
(i.e., by comparing the mobile device to ‘an authorized user list’).” (Reply
Br. 4.) Claim 1 requires more, however—it requires “authenticating the
portable destination device based on a determination that the portable
destination device is within a customer premises of a subscriber to the
plurality of television channels . . . .” (App. Br. 20 (Claims App’x)
(emphasis added).)
On this record, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding claim
1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Laksono
and Robbins. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or of
independent claims 11 and 25, which contain commensurate limitations with
the disputed limitation addressed herein. We also do not sustain the
rejection of the pending dependent claims, which stand with their respective
independent claims.
7
Appeal 2016-002859
Application 13/230,039
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—8, 10—
15, and 23—28 are reversed.
REVERSED
8