Ex Parte Yang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 8, 2018

11901205 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2018)

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.
11/901,205 09/14/2007 Charlie X. Yang GA-024374 US
ORD(RGB-113)
5844
89023 7590
Tarolli, Sundheim, Co veil & Tummino LLP/Imagine
Corporation
1300 East Ninth Street
Suite 1700
Cleveland, OH 44114
EXAMINER
HUANG, TSAN-YU J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/12/2018 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):
rkline @ tarolli. com
docketing@tarolli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLIE X. YANG
Appeal 2016-008360
Application 11/901,205
Technology Center 3600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, BETH Z. SHAW, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-008360
Application 11/901,205
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3-9, and 18-20. Claims 11-17 are withdrawn from consideration.
Final Act. 1. Claims 2 and 10 have been cancelled. App. Br. 16-18. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
Representative Claims
Representative claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis,
formatting, and bracketed material added):
1. A method for licensing a service provider to process content
using a video processing device comprising the steps of:
[A.] generating a license key indicative of a license for a
specified amount of bandwidth for a particular feature that is
covered by a license fee, the license fee being charged to the
service provider based on a specified amount of bandwidth for
the particular feature according to a license;
[B.] enforcing the license, at a video processing device,
using the license key based on whether there is sufficient
bandwidth available from the specified amount of bandwidth to
accommodate a newly created output transport stream related to
the particular feature; wherein the enforcing comprises at least
one of:
[i.] allowing processing of the newly created
output transport stream if there is a sufficient amount of
bandwidth available to accommodate the newly created
output transport stream; and
[ii.] denying processing of the newly created
output transport stream if there is an insufficient amount
of bandwidth available to accommodate the newly
created output transport stream.
2
Appeal 2016-008360
Application 11/901,205
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-9, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Mabey et al. (US
2005/0018768 Al; Jan. 27, 2005), Chandran (US 6,801,500 Bl; Oct. 5,
2004), and Shteyn et al. (US 2003/0069964 Al; Apr. 10, 2003).1
Appellant’s Contention2
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Chandran does not teach or suggest a license key that is
generated to be indicative of the license for the specified
amount of bandwidth for a particular feature covered by the
license fee, as recited in claim 1. Indeed, in claim 1, the
bandwidth limit is set based on the license that is established
according to payment of the license fee, while in Chandran, the
bandwidth limit is set based on a network flow.
App. Br. 8 (emphasis added).
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious?
1 Separate patentability is not argued as to claims 3-9 and 18-20. Except for
our ultimate decision, claims 3-9 and 18-20 are not discussed further herein.
2 This contention is determinative as to the rejection on appeal. Therefore,
Appellant’s other contentions are not particularly discussed herein.
3
Appeal 2016-008360
Application 11/901,205
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
As to Appellant’s above contention, we agree. We conclude,
consistent with Appellant’s argument, there is insufficient articulated
reasoning to support the Examiner’s finding that “Chandran teaches . . .
generating a license key indicative of a license for a specified amount of
licensed bandwidth.” Final Act. 6. Therefore, we conclude that there is
insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner’s final conclusion
that claim 1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of Appellant’s invention.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 3-9, and 18-20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) On this record, these claims have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-9, and 18-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
4