Ex Parte Vasudevan

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 4, 2012

10334848 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 4, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte VENUGOPAL VASUDEVAN
________________

Appeal 2010-000646
Application 10/334,848
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-000646
Application 10/334,848

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 – 9, 12 – 22, and 25 – 29.1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Invention
The invention generally relates to rendering multimedia content via
multiple devices. (Spec. p. 1, ll. 13 – 15). Claim 1 is representative of the
invention.
Exemplary Claims
1. A method for delivering requested media content,
comprising:
receiving a requested media object requested by a user device,
the requested media object including media of at least a first
type;
creating a first new media object, the first new media object
having at least some of the media of the requested media object
of the first type;
creating a second new media object, the second new media
object having at least some of the media of the requested media
object of a second type, if any, where the media of the second
type is different than the media of the first type;
inserting at least one user interface mechanism for activation
by a user into the second new media object, the at least one user
interface mechanism corresponding to media of the requested

1 The Examiner has indicated claims 10, 11, 23, 24, and 30 contain
allowable subject matter (Final Rej. 7).
Appeal 2010-000646
Application 10/334,848

3
media object of the first type included in the first new media
object;
delivering the second new media object to the user device;
delivering the first new media object to a secondary device
separate from the user device; and
causing a first new media object indicator to be generated in
response to activation of the at least one user interface
mechanism via the user device, the first new media object
indicator indicating to the user media of the first new media
object rendered on the secondary device.
(Emphasis added).
Evidence and Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4 – 9, 12 – 22, and 25 – 29 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dideriksen (US 2005/0188310
A1) and Dowling (US 2007/0244991 A1) (Ans. 3 – 7).
The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dideriksen, Dowling, and Fishman (US 6,871,236 B2)
(Ans. 7 – 8).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner relies on Dowling to teach or suggested the claimed
step of inserting at least one user interface mechanism into a second new
media object (Ans. 5 and 10 – 11). Appellant contends that the Examiner
erred, arguing that Dowling “cannot fairly be said to involve the insertion of
a user interface mechanism into an object to be delivered to the user device”
(App. Br. 8). We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred.
Inserting a user interface mechanism into a media object would be an
additional step that changes the media object. However, the Examiner’s
findings merely show that Dowling teaches replacing an area-constrained
Appeal 2010-000646
Application 10/334,848

4
user interface, such as a mobile unit display, with a non-area-constrained
user interface, such as a full sized display monitor (Ans. 5, citing Dowling,
¶¶ [0016], [0017], and [0031]; see also Dowling, ¶ [0009]). Replacing the
user interface affects where media objects are delivered, but does not change
the media objects themselves. Thus, the Examiner’s findings do not show
that Dowling teaches or suggests inserting a user interface mechanism into a
second new media object. The Examiner also does not show that Dideriksen
cures this deficiency in Dowling.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 2 – 9, 12 – 22, and 25 – 29 incorporate the disputed recitations
or recitations similar to the disputed recitations. Thus, we also do not sustain
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of these claims.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that Dideriksen and Dowling
collectively teach or suggest inserting at least one user interface mechanism
for activation by a user into a second new media object.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 – 9, 12 – 22,
and 25 – 29.

REVERSED

msc