Ex Parte Wong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 22, 2018

13232598 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/232,598 09/14/2011 Ling Jun Wong
51518 7590 05/24/2018
MA YER & WILLIAMS PC
55 Madison A venue
Suite 400
Morristown, NJ 07960
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.
201003458.02 8211
EXAMINER
TELAN, MICHAEL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2018 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):
docket@mwpatentlaw.com
mwolf@mwpatentlaw.com
kwilliams@mwpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LING JUN WONG, CHARLES MCCOY, and TRUE XIONG
Appeal2017-010136
Application 13/232,598
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CARL SILVERMAN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 4, and 7-27, i.e., all pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real parties in interest as Sony Corporation and
Sony Network Entertainment International LLC. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-010136
Application 13/232,598
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention concerns "publishing
data to one or more social networking services" by tracking "data pertaining
to a user's behavior in browsing, selecting, and playing an asset (e.g., media)
from particular sources on a particular Internet television platform (IPTV)"
and transmitting "a feed representative of such behavior ... to the social
networking services for publication as recommendations." Abstract; see
Spec. i-fi-1 3-23. 2
Exemplary Claims
Independent claims 1 and 16 exemplify the claims at issue and read as
follows (with formatting added for clarity):
1. A method for facilitating interaction between a second
display, a social networking feed, and a content server,
compnsmg:
i. receiving by the second display, an authentication
credential associated with a content playback device, the second
display being distinct from the content playback device;
ii. receiving a social networking feed that includes
tracked data representative of browsing, selection, or playback
of an asset by an IPTV user;
iii. generating by a social networking service provider
one or more social networking pages for consumption by a
viewer of the pages, the generating using the received feed, the
social networking pages including at least one of an IPTV user
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the
Specification, filed September 14, 2011; "Final Act." for the Final Office
Action, mailed July 15, 2015; "App. Br." for the Appeal Brief, filed
December 15, 2015; "Suppl. Br." for the Appeal Brief, filed October 27,
2016; and "Ans." for the Examiner's Answer, mailed February 9, 2017.
2
Appeal2017-010136
Application 13/232,598
link, asset link, service link, platform link, share link, or second
display link; and
iv. implementing control for the interaction at the second
display responsively to selection of a link by the viewer from
the one or more social networking pages,
wherein the implementing includes
instantiating an application on the second
display, the application being one of a web app,
native application, Java application, or application
written using ASPI.NET framework and
configuring the application to control asset
playback of items from the content server on the
content playback device associated with the second
display, and
wherein the second display is authenticated with the
content server using the authentication credential associated
with the content playback device.
16. A second display, comprising:
i. a display module, the display module providing a user
interface and configured to display a content item or to receive
a content item URL/URI;
ii. an asset search and retrieval module adapted for
searching and retrieving an asset recommended from an IPTV
viewer and published in a feed to a social networking service;
and
iii. a network communications module, the network
communications module for coupling the second display to a
local network or to a content playback device distinct from the
second display and for causing the recommended asset to
playback on the content playback device, the network
communications module configured to provide an
authentication credential of the content playback device to a
content source through a proxy server or to cause a content
playback device to request the recommended asset from the
content source using the authentication credential, the
3
Appeal2017-010136
Application 13/232,598
authentication credential having been previously received by
the second display and used to request the recommended asset.
Suppl. Br. 3, 5 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence ofunpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Pickelsimer US 2008/0178218 Al July 24, 2008
Issa et al. US 2009/0265737 Al Oct. 22, 2009
("Issa")
Lee et al. US 2009/0271826 Al Oct. 29, 2009
("Lee")
Johnson et al. US 2009/0300502 Al Dec. 3, 2009
("Johnson")
Srinivasan et al. US 2010/0251292 Al Sept. 30, 2010
("Srinivasan")
Chow et al. US 2011/0154401 Al June 23, 2011
("Chow")
Pan US 2012/0079541 Al Mar. 29, 2012
(filed Sept. 25, 2010)
Hosein et al. US 2012/0188147 Al July 26, 2012
("Hosein") (filed Dec. 29, 2011)
The Re} ections on Appeal
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 13-15, 21-25, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Issa, Pan, and Hosein. Final Act. 4--20.
Claims 16 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pan, Issa, Hosein, and Chow. Final Act. 21-24.
Claims 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Issa, Pan, Hosein, and Pickelsimer. Final Act. 24--28.
4
Appeal2017-010136
Application 13/232,598
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Issa, Pan, Hosein, and Johnson. Final Act. 28-29.
Claims 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Pan, Issa, Hosein, Chow, and Srinivasan. Final Act. 29-30.
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Issa, Pan, Hosein, and Lee. Final Act. 30-31.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1, 4, and 7-27 in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained
below, we disagree with Appellants' assertions regarding Examiner error.
We adopt the Examiner's findings and reasoning in the Final Office Action
(Final Act. 2-31) and Answer (Ans. 2-17). We add the following to address
and emphasize specific findings and arguments.
The§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 13-15, 21-25, and 27
RECEIVING AND USING AN AUTHENTICATION CREDENTIAL
ASSOCIATED WITH A CONTENT PLAYBACK DEVICE
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
"[ n ]one of the references disclose or suggest" the following limitations:
(1) "receiving by the second display, an authentication credential associated
with a content playback device, the second display being distinct from the
content playback device"; or (2) "the second display being authenticated
with the content server using the authentication credential associated with
the content playback device." App. Br. 8. Appellants contend that the
Examiner acknowledges that Issa and Pan lack claim 1 's disputed
limitations. Id. Appellants then concede that Hosein "discloses that a
pairing of two devices 'may be accomplished by prompting a user at first
5
Appeal2017-010136
Application 13/232,598
device 102 and second device 106 to enter a PIN Number or a password.'"
Id. (quoting Hosein i-f 23). But Appellants seek to distinguish Hosein by
asserting that "the PIN Number or password was specifically set up to pair
the devices, and is thus not the authentication credential associated with the
content playback device as required" by claim 1. Id. at 8, 11. Appellants
contend that "Hosein does not teach that the PIN Number or password is
presented to a content server" but instead "discloses that the PIN Number or
password are entered at the first and second devices." Id. at 9.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. The
Examiner finds that Hosein teaches pairing "first device 102 and second
device 106 connect[ ed] to remote server 11 O" using an authentication
credential according to claim 1. Ans. 3 (citing Hosein i-fi-1 16-23); see Final
Act. 8. More specifically, Hosein discloses "methods and systems for
displaying content on multiple paired devices with a simple command."
Hosein i-f 3. Hosein describes first device 102 as a smartphone, tablet
computer, or laptop computer and second device 106 as an "internet-capable
television." Id. i-fi-114--17. Remote server 110 facilitates "communications
between first device 102 and second device 106," e.g., through a network.
Id. i-f 18. Remote server 110 also facilitates "the viewing of content
[currently] displayed on [first] device 102" on "television 106 in response to
a user command 112 made at first device 102," e.g., by "register[ing] user
command 112 and then provid[ing] instructions 114 to second device 106 to
display the content currently displayed on first device 102." Id. i-f 19; see id.
i-f 7. "Once a user is finished viewing content on second device 106, a user
may enter a command at either first device 102 or second device 106 ... to
remove the content from second device 106." Id. i-f 22; see id. i-f 7.
6
Appeal2017-010136
Application 13/232,598
In Hosein, remote server 110 operates to coordinate content display
after "first device 102 and second device 106 have been coupled or paired
through remote server 110." Hosein i-fi-f 19, 23, Fig. 2 item 202 ("pair first
device with second device through remote server"). Pairing first device 102
and second device 106 may involve "prompting a user at first device 102
and second device 106 to enter a PIN Number or a password." Id. i123.
Appellants' assertion that an "authentication credential" according to
claim 1 does not encompass a PIN number or password conflicts with the
Specification's disclosure. See Ans. 4--5. In particular, the Specification
explains that the second display prompts the user to input into the second
display login information, such as the "usemame and password that the
content playback device provided to the management server." Spec. i154.
The user-entered information is transmitted to the proxy server. Id. i-fi-154--
55, Fig. 3. Figure 3 describes that transmission as "Authentication request."
Id. Fig. 3. The proxy server then communicates with the management server
to "verifly] the user name and password with the management server." Id.
i155. Figure 3 describes that communication as "Verifies credentials." Id.
Fig. 3. Hence, the Specification indicates that an "authentication credential"
according to claim 1 encompasses a PIN number or password.
Accordingly, Hosein's first device 102 corresponds to the claimed
"second display"; Hosein's second device 106 corresponds to the claimed
"content playback device"; and Hosein's PIN number or password
corresponds to the claimed "authentication credential associated with a
content playback device." See Final Act. 2, 8; Ans. 3-5; see also Spec.
i-fi-18-9, 11-12, 54--55, Fig. 3. That first device 102 and second device 106
use the same PIN number or password does not distinguish Hosein from
7
Appeal2017-010136
Application 13/232,598
claim 1. Claim 1 uses the transitional term "comprising" and, therefore,
"does not exclude unrecited elements," such as an authentication credential
associated with two components, e.g., the "content playback device" and the
"second display." See Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v. Merus N. V., 864 F.3d
1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
§ 2111.03).
Also, Hosein's first device 102 and second device 106 each receive
the user-entered PIN number or password, and then those entries are
transmitted to remote server 110 for authentication to permit pairing.
Hosein i-fi-f 19, 23, Fig. 2 item 202. Further, remote server 110 facilitates
content viewing on first device 102 and second device 106, and thus
constitutes a content server. Id. i-fi-1 7, 19. Therefore, Hosein teaches or
suggests ( 1) a "second display" receiving an "authentication credential"
associated with a "content playback device" and (2) a "content server" using
the "authentication credential" to authenticate the "second display."
In addition, Pan teaches or suggests a "content server" and
"facilitating interaction between a second display and a content server."
Final Act. 6-7. Pan explains that content distributor 110 streams a video
program to mobile device 106, and a user actuation at remote control 104 or
mobile device 106 causes content distributor 110 to stream the video
program to digital TV system 102. Pan i-fi-128-33, 44, Fig. 5.
Consequently, the combination of disclosures in Hosein and Pan
teaches or suggests claim 1 's disputed limitations. See Final Act. 2-3, 6-9;
Ans. 3-7.
8
Appeal2017-010136
Application 13/232,598
REASONS TO COMBINE THE REFERENCES
Appellants assert that "the Examiner has not provided sufficient
reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the references."
App. Br. 9. Appellants also assert that "it would be difficult to provide"
articulated reasoning supporting a conclusion of obviousness "due to the
disparate nature of the references." Id. at 11. Appellants contend that "[t]he
publication of the key frames provided by Issa obviates the need for the
synchronization provided by Pan and Hosein, since the publication
accomplished the same end." Id.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. The
Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
combined Issa and Pan to "improve the system by enabling users to continue
viewing content on a television display while using a second display for
additional content, thereby enhancing convenience for users." Final Act. 7;
Ans. 7-8. The Examiner also finds that a person of ordinary skill would
have combined Hosein with Issa and Pan because "[t]he modification would
serve to ensure only authenticated (e.g., paired) devices are enabled to
communicate with each other, thereby improving" system security. Final
Act. 8-9; Ans. 8. Further, the Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill
"considering the references would have recognized the advantages" of the
combination, and "the combination would have yielded nothing more than
predictable results .... " Ans. 8. In addition, the Examiner determines that
Issa, Pan, and Hosein "each pertain to the delivery and consumption of video
content by users, and are therefore not disparate." Id.
Thus, the Examiner provides articulated reasoning with a rational
underpinning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
9
Appeal2017-010136
Application 13/232,598
combined Issa, Pan, and Hosein, including identifying advantages and
improvements achieved with the combination. Final Act. 7-9; Ans. 7-8.
"[T]he law does not require that the references be combined for the reasons
contemplated by the inventor." In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir.
1992). "[A ]ny need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of
invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining"
references. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). "[T]he
desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or
process is universal .... " DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co.,
464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325,
1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). "[A]n implicit motivation to combine" may result
from a desire to make a product or process "stronger, cheaper, cleaner,
faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient." DyStar, 464 F.3d
at 1368.
We note that Appellants did not file a Reply Brief to rebut the
Examiner's factual findings and legal conclusions in the Answer.
SUMMARY FOR INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants' arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 for obviousness
based on Issa, Pan, and Hosein. Hence, we sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of
claim 1.
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 21AND27 AND
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 13, 15, AND 22-25
For independent claims 21 and 2 7, Appellants "reiterate" the
arguments regarding claim 1 and do not argue patentability separately. App.
Br. 14--15. Also, Appellants do not argue patentability separately for
10
Appeal2017-010136
Application 13/232,598
dependent claims 13, 15, and 22-25. Id. at 6-15. Thus, we sustain the
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 13, 15, 21-25, and 27 for the same reasons as
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and specifies that "the causing includes
causing the content playback device to request the asset from the content
server." Suppl. Br. 3 (Claims App.). Appellants argue that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 4 because "there is no disclosure in the combination
of references" of claim 4's subject matter. App. Br. 11. In particular,
Appellants contend that "Issa discloses different ways the peer device can
obtain" video-content items and "simply does not disclose a second display
causing a content playback device to request an asset from a content server."
Id. at 12. Appellants assert that "Pan and Hosein are similarly deficient."
Id.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner finds that Issa discloses a media-distribution service that
streams a video-content item to a peer device having a media-player
function. Final Act. 17 (citing Issa i-fi-143, 54); Ans. 9 (citing Issa i-fi-143, 54).
Issa explains that a user can cause the peer device to request a video-content
item from the media-distribution service by selecting a key frame associated
with the video-content item. Issa i-fi-1 43, 51. Thus, Issa teaches or suggests
causing a content playback device to request an asset from a content server.
In addition, as discussed above for claim 1, Pan's content distributor
110 streams a video program to mobile device 106, and a user actuation at
remote control 104 or mobile device 106 causes content distributor 110 to
stream the video program to digital TV system 102. Pan i-fi-128-33, 44,
11
Appeal2017-010136
Application 13/232,598
Fig. 5. The user actuation causes digital TV system 102 to send a request
signal to content distributor 110, and content distributor 110 responds by
sending the video program to digital TV system 102. Id. i-fi-130, 33, Fig. 2A-
2B. Thus, Pan also teaches or suggests causing a content playback device to
request an asset from a content server.
Consequently, the combination of disclosures in Issa, Pan, and Hosein
teaches or suggests claim 4's subject matter. See Final Act. 17; Ans. 8-9.
Hence, we sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 4. 3
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and specifies that "the feed includes
tags compliant with an API [application programming interface] exposed by
a server operated on behalf of the social networking service provider."
Suppl. Br. 3 (Claims App.). Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 7 because "the combination of references does not disclose"
claim 7's subject matter. App. Br. 12. In particular, Appellants contend
that: (1) Issa' s "annotations and key frames" are "not the same as tags
compliant with an API exposed by a server"; and (2) "there is no disclosure
in Issa of such tags or an APL" Id. Appellants assert that "Pan and Hosein
are similarly deficient." Id.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. The
Examiner finds that Issa discloses a social-networking service that publishes
a feed of key frames and optionally annotations from a first user to "one or
more second users such that the key frames of the video content item and,
optionally, the annotations are presented to the one or more second users as
3 We note that claim 1 does not recite "causing" and thus provides no
antecedent basis for "the causing" language in claim 4.
12
Appeal2017-010136
Application 13/232,598
the corresponding segments of the video content item are viewed by the first
user." Ans. 9-10; see Final Act. 17. By selecting a key frame from the key-
frame feed, a second user may view part or all of the video-content item
associated with the selected key frame. Issa i-f 43. To provide consistent
displays and give different users the same viewing experience for items
"published via a social networking service," e.g., in a "key frame
presentation billboard," Issa's key-frame feed includes tags according to
claim 7. See Issa i-fi-137--40, 43, 45--46, 58, Fig. 5; see also Spec. i-fi-14, 20,
50, 66.
Consequently, the combination of disclosures in Issa, Pan, and Hosein
teaches or suggests claim 7's subject matter. See Final Act. 17; Ans. 9-10.
Hence, we sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 7.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and recites:
wherein upon selection of the IPTV user link by the viewer, a
social networking page providing information about the IPTV
user is presented for viewing by the viewer, the social
networking page further including a link for the viewer to
invoke the second display or an option for the viewer to add the
IPTV user as a social networking friend.
Suppl. Br. 4 (Claims App.). Appellants assert that the Examiner wrongly
rejected claim 8 because "there is no disclosure in Issa of [an] IPTV user
link that, when selected, provides information about the IPTV user." App.
Br. 12.
Appellants' assertion does not persuade us of Examiner error. Issa
explains that the social-networking service provides users with a "key frame
presentation billboard" displaying key frames of video-content items
"currently being viewed by a number of users." Issa i-fi-1 45--46, Fig. 5. The
13
Appeal2017-010136
Application 13/232,598
presentation billboard also includes bookmarks for users, and a "bookmark
may be selected in order to ... view a profile of the bookmarked user." Id.
i-f 51; see Final Act. 17 (citing Issa i-f 51 ); Ans. 10 (citing Issa i-f 51 ). In
addition, Issa discloses a media-distribution service that "stream[ s] Internet
Protocol Television (IPTV) content" to users. Issa i-f 59.
Consequently, Issa teaches or suggests an IPTV user link that, when
selected, provides information about the IPTV user according to claim 8.
See Final Act. 17; Ans. 10; Issa i-fi-145--46, 51, 59. Hence, we sustain the
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 8.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14
Claim 14 depends from claim 1 and requires that "the received feed is
personalized on a per-viewer basis and is adapted for publication in
substantially real time or wherein the feed is configured to be representative
of a plurality of viewers and is further adapted for publication in bulk in
substantially non-real time." Suppl. Br. 4 (Claims App.). Appellants assert
that the Examiner wrongly rejected claim 14 because Issa's buddy list "is
viewed by the sender, not the receiver of the feed" and "cannot be a
personalization of a received feed." App. Br. 12.
Appellants' assertion does not persuade us of Examiner error. The
Examiner finds that Issa teaches or suggests a received, substantially real-
time, personalized feed. Final Act. 19 (citing Issa i-fi-1 42, 44, Fig. 3);
Ans. 13-14 (citing Issa i-fi-133, 42, 44, Fig. 3). Issa discloses selecting key
frames for the feed of key frames supplied to "one or more second users"
based on user preferences, e.g., "user preferences of the one or more second
users to which the key frames are to be published." Issa i-f 33. For example,
"one of the second users to which the key frames are to be published may
14
Appeal2017-010136
Application 13/232,598
indicate that he or she does not desire key frames including content that is
inappropriate for children, such as violence or nudity." Id. Issa also
discloses viewer-selectable filtering criteria for the "key frame presentation
billboard" that displays key frames of currently viewed video-content items.
Id. iTiT 45, 47, Fig. 5.
Because Issa teaches or suggests a received, substantially real-time,
personalized feed according to claim 14, we sustain the § 1 0 3 (a) rejection
of claim 14. See Final Act. 19; Ans. 13-14; Issa iTiT 33, 42, 44--45, 47,
Figs. 3, 5.
The§ 103 (a) Rejection of Claims 9-11
Claim 9 depends from claim 1. Suppl. Br. 4 (Claims App.).
Appellants do not argue patentability separately for claim 9. App. Br. 6-15.
Thus, we sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 9 for the same reasons as
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 10 and 11 read as follows:
10. The method of claim 1, wherein upon selection of the
service link by the viewer, an IPTV domain page providing
information about an IPTV service is presented for viewing by
the viewer, the IPTV domain page further including a link for
the viewer to invoke the second display.
11. The method of claim 1, wherein upon selection of the
platform link by the viewer, an IPTV domain page providing
information about an IPTV platform is presented for viewing by
the viewer, the IPTV domain page further including a link for
the viewer to invoke the second display.
Suppl. Br. 4 (Claims App.).
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10
and 11 because Pickelsimer's "display [of] 'description information
corresponding to one of the plurality of programs'" relates to "information
15
Appeal2017-010136
Application 13/232,598
about a program, such as a sports program or a video-on-demand program,"
rather than "an IPTV service or an IPTV platform as required by" claims 10
and 11. App. Br. 12 (quoting Pickelsimer i-f 37). According to Appellants,
"Pickelsimer discloses a content element that displays information, not a
link, which, upon selection, results in a page being provided." Id.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error.
Pickelsimer discloses a media guide with various sections called "content
elements." Pickelsimer i-fi-134--38, 44, Figs. 5-7; see Final Act. 25-27;
Ans. 11-12. Those content elements may display, among other things,
available video services, such as video-on-demand services and free or
broadcast services, and available video programming channels. Pickelsimer
i-fi-118-19, 34--35, 45. Displaying available video services teaches or
suggests "providing information about an IPTV service" to a viewer
according to claim 10. Displaying available video programming channels
teaches or suggests "providing information about an IPTV platform" to a
viewer according to claim 11.
Further, the Examiner finds that "Pan provides a teaching for a link to
invoke a second display." Final Act. 26, 28 (citing Pan i-f 28). In addition,
as discussed above for claim 8, Issa discloses a media-distribution service
that "stream[ s] Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) content" to users. Issa
,-r 59.
Consequently, the combination of disclosures in Issa, Pan, Hosein,
and Pickelsimer teaches or suggests the subject matter in claims 10 and 11.
See Final Act. 26-28; Ans. 11-13; Issa i-f 59; Pan i-f 28; Pickelsimer i-fi-118-
19, 34--38, 44--45, Figs. 5-7. Hence, we sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of
claims 10 and 11.
16
Appeal2017-010136
Application 13/232,598
The§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 16 and 20
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 16
because the references fail to teach or suggest the following limitations:
the network communications module configured to provide an
authentication credential of the content playback device to a
content source through a proxy server or to cause a content
playback device to request the recommended asset from the
content source using the authentication credential, the
authentication credential having been previously received by
the second display and used to request the recommended asset.
App. Br. 13. Appellants assert that claim 16 specifies that "one device is
using the authentication credential of another." Id. Appellants then contend
that Chow differs from claim 16 because "the set top box [in Chow] is using
its own authentication credential, not that of another device." Id.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner relies on the combination of disclosures in the references to
teach or suggest claim 16' s disputed limitations, whereas Appellants attack
the references individually. See Final Act. 21-24; Ans. 14--16. Where a
rejection rests on a combination of references, an appellant cannot establish
nonobviousness by attacking the references individually. See In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, the Examiner finds that Pan discloses a network
communications module providing the coupling required by claim 16. Final
Act. 21; Ans. 15. Pan also discloses a user actuation causing digital TV
system 102 to send a request signal to content distributor 110, and content
distributor 110 responding by sending an asset to digital TV system 102.
Pan i-fi-130, 33, Figs. 2A-2B. Thus, Pan teaches or suggests causing a
content playback device to request an asset from a content server.
17
Appeal2017-010136
Application 13/232,598
The Examiner also finds that Chow teaches or suggests requesting an
asset using a previously received authentication credential. Final Act. 3--4,
23-24; Ans. 15-16. In addition, as discussed above for claim 1, Hosein
teaches or suggests a second display (first device 102) and a content
playback device (second device 106) using a previously received
authentication credential (PIN number or password) when requesting an
asset from a content server (remote server 110). See Hosein i-fi-17, 14--23,
Fig. 2.
Consequently, the combination of disclosures in the references
teaches or suggests claim 16's disputed limitations. Thus, we sustain the
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 16.
Claim 20 depends from claim 16. Suppl. Br. 5 (Claims App.).
Appellants do not argue patentability separately for claim 20. App.
Br. 6-15. Thus, we sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 20 for the same
reasons as claim 16. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The§ 103(a) Rejections of Claims 12, 17-19, and 26
Claim 12 depends from claim 1; claims 17-19 depend from claim 16;
and claim 26 depends from claim 21. Suppl. Br. 4--5, 7 (Claims App.).
Appellants do not argue patentability separately for these dependent claims.
App. Br. 6-15. Thus, we sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of these dependent
claims for the same reasons as the related independent claim. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 4, and 7-27.
18
Appeal2017-010136
Application 13/232,598
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
19