Ex Parte Weel

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2016

10840108 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
10/840,108 0510512004 Martin Wee!
71739 7590 06/29/2016
Concert Technology Corporation
5400 Trinity Road, Suite 303
Raleigh, NC 27607
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.
CT-LBS-007/US (A031) 9463
EXAMINER
DAFTUAR, SAKET K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 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 MAR TIN WEEL
Appeal2014-008352
Application 10/840, 108
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and JOHN D.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 11-17, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37--41, 43, 44, and 50-56.
Claims 19-30 and 45--49 are withdrawn and claims 18, 33, 36, and 42 are
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to a digital entertainment network
wherein play lists are obtained by communicating attributes of the play lists to
a playlist server and wherein songs are obtained by communicating
information representative of the songs to a content server. Spec. ,-r 2.
Claim 31 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
Appeal2014-008352
Application 10/840, 108
31. A method of playing media items, the method
compnsmg:
moving a first device operative to receive a wireless
broadcast of at least one location ID into a range of a local area
network having connected thereto at least one second device
operative to wirelessly broadcast the at least one location ID,
wherein the at least one location ID identifies the local area
network of which the at least one second device is a member, the
at least one second device comprising a wireless access point;
receiving on the first device the at least one location ID;
receiving, on the first device, user input selecting at least
one desired location ID from the at least one location ID
received;
transmitting authentication information comprising a
password to the at least one second device for the at least one
desired location ID in response to the user input; and
receiving, at the first device from the second device,
responsive to transmitting the authentication information, a list
of devices that are members of the local area network identified
by the at least one desired location ID.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 11-17, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37--44 and 50-56
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goldberg et al. (US
2005/0160270 Al; pub. July 21, 2005), Knauerhase et al. (US 2004/0203998
Al; pub. Oct. 1, 2004), and Fukao et al. (US 2004/0024912 Al; pub. Feb. 5,
2004). Final Act. 3-13. 1
1 Throughout this opinion, we also refer to ( 1) the Final Action, mailed
September 17, 2013 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed April 7, 2014
("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed June 4, 2014 ("Ans."); and
(4) the Reply Brief filed August 4, 2014 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2014-008352
Application 10/840, 108
ANALYSIS
Claims 11, 12, 17, 31, 32, 34, 35, 40, 41, 43, 44, and 50--56
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 11, 12, 17, 31, 32, 34, 35, 40, 41, 43, 44, and 50-56
as unpatentable over Goldberg, Knauerhase, and Fukao.
Appellant contends that neither Goldberg nor Fukao teach receiving at
the first device from the second device a list of devices that are members of
the local area network in response to transmitting the authentication
information, as required by claim 31. App. Br. 18-22; Reply Br. 5---6.
Specifically, Appellant asserts that Goldberg's "mere mention generally of
keeping IP addresses and passwords, private, or of using encryption in
paragraph 0272, does not teach or render obvious this feature as restricting
membership in a cluster is not the same as a list of devices being received
responsive to transmitting the authentication information." App. Br. 19-20;
see also Reply Br. 5---6.
Notably absent in Appellant's argument is any discussion of
Goldberg's teaching that once a search unit is accepted into a cluster, the
search unit will store the IDs of the broadcast unit and other members of the
cluster or, in other words, the search unit will store the IDs of the members
of the local area network. See, e.g., Goldberg i-f 252; Final Act. 4.
Specifically, Goldberg teaches that when there are sufficient cluster ID
matches between the search unit and the database of the broadcast unit,
the new member of the search unit 7 50 can be accepted into the
cluster. In a step 1412, the search unit 750 can then store the ID
of the broadcast unit 710 and the other members of the existing
cluster 700 into his cluster IDs, and the broadcast unit 750 and
the other receive units 730 of the cluster can then store the
personal ID of the search unit 7 50 into their cluster IDs.
3
Appeal2014-008352
Application 10/840, 108
Goldberg i-f 252 (emphasis added); see also Ans. 13-14. Although Goldberg
does not expressly state that the search unit receives the cluster IDs, a skilled
artisan would understand that Goldberg at least suggests that the search unit
receives cluster IDs from the device it is communicating with, i.e., the
broadcast unit or second device, in order to store them.
Appellant also fails to address Goldberg's teaching of establishing
communications through the use of passwords. Ans. 12-13 (citing Goldberg
i-f 272); see also Goldberg i-f 274 ("This password can, for example, be used
in the step 1110 (e.g. see FIG. 14B) to determine whether the broadcast unit
710 accepts the search unit 7 50 for audio multicasting. "). In other words,
Goldberg describes that one way a search unit is accepted into a cluster may
be through transmission of authentication information.
As such, these teachings of Goldberg together (i.e., transmitting
passwords for acceptance along with storing IDs of the cluster in response to
acceptance), at least suggest the receiving at the first device from the second
device, responsive to transmitting the authentication information, a list of
devices that are members of the local area network identified by the at least
one desired location ID. See, e.g., Goldberg i-fi-1252, 272, 274.
Appellant also asserts that Fukao fails to teach the receiving limitation
because Fukao only discloses that group information may be read from a
database, not that it is received at a first device from a second device
responsive to transiting authentication information. App. Br. 21-22. Fukao
further lacks, according to Appellant, a list of devices that are members of
the local area network identified by the at least one desired location ID.
App. Br. 22.
We disagree. Fukao teaches using a group password to join a group,
(Fukao i-f 87; Ans. 4) and that once a user is joined, service information from
4
Appeal2014-008352
Application 10/840, 108
the service information database may identify network devices that are able
to provide the requested service from among the devices belonging to user in
the same group. See, e.g., Fukao i-fi-1 94, 98. This service information from
the service information database is provided to the joined user. Fukao i-fi-195,
99; see also Figs. 12-13 (identifying that the service information is sent);
Fig. 2 (showing that the service information database may be located on the
device management server). Thus, as the Examiner finds, Fukao teaches a
mechanism that allows transmitting "a password associated with the selected
location and receiving list of devices that are member of the network." Ans.
15-17.
The Examiner further explains that receiving a list of identified
members upon authentication is an obvious variation because it would allow
sharing localized audio between network member from one device to
another authenticated and registered device, as taught by Goldberg, based on
a list of available member devices that are available to communicate based
on their network location and region, as taught by Fukao. See, e.g., Ans. 4,
6, 17. As such, we agree with the Examiner that the cited combination of
Goldberg, Fukao, and Knauerhase teaches or suggests "receiving, at the first
device from the second device, responsive to transmitting the authentication
information, a list of devices that are members of the local area network
identified by the at least one desired location ID," as recited in claim 31.
Appellant presents similar arguments with respect to claim 11. See,
e.g., Reply Br. 6. For the reasons discussed above, we find this argument
unpersuasive. Specifically, both Goldberg and Fukao teach using passwords
5
Appeal2014-008352
Application 10/840, 108
or authentication information to join or access a group and transmitting
device IDs of the group members in response to granted access to the group.
With respect to claims 41 and 50, Appellant contends that Goldberg
does not teach or suggest receiving a list of songs or list of media items,
including songs or media items present on another device, in response to
sending the password. App. Br. 24--25; see also Reply Br. 6. The
Examiner, on the other hand, finds that Goldberg teaches this limitation.
Final Act. 8 (citing Goodberg i-fi-f 157-161, 176-177, 331).
As discussed above, both Goldberg and Fukao teach using
authentication information or passwords to access or join a group. See
Goldberg i-fi-1272, 274; Fukao i187. Goldberg also teaches that
the user is provided a list of song files for display, preferably on
the display 1170. In a step 1302, the user then selects a song from
the display to play ... These song files can be either locally
resident on the unit 100, or can alternatively be present on other
audio units 100 to which the audio unit 100 is connected, as in a
cluster ....
Goldberg i1331. These teachings of Goldberg together at least suggest "in
response to sending the password, receiving at the second device a list of
media items including media item present on another device on the local
area network," as recited in claim 41, and "in response to sending the
password, receiving at the first device a list of songs including songs present
on another device on the local area network," as recited in claim 50.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
claims 11, 12, 17, 31, 32, 34, 35, 40, 41, 43, 44, and 50-56 are unpatentable
over Goldberg, Fukao, and Knauerhase.
6
Appeal2014-008352
Application 10/840, 108
Claims 13-16 and 37-39
With respect to claims 13 and 37, Appellant contends that Goldberg
does not disclose or render obvious selecting at least one device identifier
identifying the device and controlling the selected device. App. Br. 27.
The Examiner relies on paragraphs 228-229 of Goldberg as teaching these
limitations. See Final Act. 7.
As Appellant points out, while Goldberg teaches selecting a particular
broadcast unit, notably absent is any teaching that the search unit will then
control the broadcast unit. See, e.g., App. Br. 27 ("It should clearly be seen
that the cited paragraphs do not teach or even suggest that the search unit
control the broadcast unit or the broadcast unit control the search unit.");
Goldberg i-fi-1228-229. As such, we are persuaded that Goldberg does not
disclose or render obvious selecting at least one device identifier identifying
the device and controlling the selected device.
Accordingly, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 13-16 and 37-39
as unpatentable over Goldberg, Fukao, and Knauerhase.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 11, 12, 17, 31, 32, 34, 35,
40, 41, 43, 44, and 50-56 under§ 103, but erred in rejecting claims 13-16
and 37-39.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 11, 12, 17, 31, 32,
34, 35, 40, 41, 43, 44, and 50-56, but reverse the Examiner's decision to
reject claims 13-16 and 37-39.
7
Appeal2014-008352
Application 10/840, 108
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8