Ex Parte ZHAO et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 29, 201612724332 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 121724,332 03/15/2010 HUI ZHAO 124538 7590 07/01/2016 Cox Communications, Inc, c/o Next IP Law Group LLP Two Ravinia Suite 500 Atlanta, GA 30346 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. 33020-RA33 7083 EXAMINER TAYLOR,JOSHUAD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2426 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/01/2016 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): bgunter@nextiplaw.com bbalser@nextiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HUI ZHAO, CRAIG SMITHPETERS, ANDREW PETER BODEN, and YOUSEF WASEF NIJIM Appeal2015-002137 Application 12/724,332 Technology Center 2400 Before ERIC B. CHEN, SHARON PENICK, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-20, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. Appeal2015-002137 Application 12/724,332 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to a multi-room media network that includes a network for providing device interconnectivity and content control devices coupled to the network. (Abstract.) Claim 1 is exemplary with disputed limitation in italics: 1. A multi-room media network in a single premises coupled to a content delivery network, the multi-room media network comprising: a plurality of content control devices configured for accessing content, the plurality of content control devices comprising: a multi-room digital video recorder (MR- DVR) for providing for capture and presentation of content received from a content source via the delivery network, captured content being stored in a file system along with metadata; at least one non-DVR device, coupled to the MR-DVR, the at least one non-DVR device being selectively configurable to communicate with the MR-DVR; and at least one third party device being selectively configurable to communicate with the MR-DVR, wherein the MR-DVR maintains a local trusted device list, the local trusted device list including a grouping of data associated with each of the content control devices, wherein, for each of the content control devices, the grouping of data includes an identifier for the content control device, a name field for storing a name associated with the content control device, a first indicator for identifying the content control device associated with the identifier as a DVR device, a non-DVR device, or a third party device, and a second indicator for identifying whether the content control 2 Appeal2015-002137 Application 12/724,332 device associated with the identifier is selectively configured to communicate with the MR-DVR. Claims 1, 4, 10, 13, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Russ (US 2007/0143776 Al; publ. June 21, 2007), Cashman (US 2007/0288975 Al; publ. Dec. 13, 2007), and Garg (US 2008/0301779 Al; publ. Dec. 4, 2008). Claims 2 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Russ, Cashman, Garg, and Wesley (US 2005/0203892 A 1; publ. Sept. 15, 2005). Claims 3 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Russ, Cashman, Garg, Wesley, and Eldering (US 2003/0149975 Al; publ. Aug. 7, 2003). Claims 5-7 and 14--16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Russ, Cashman, Garg, and Chiang (US 2009/0260042 Al; publ. Oct. 15, 2009). Claims 8 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Russ, Cashman, Garg, and Uskali (US 2008/0126919 Al; publ. May 29, 2008). Claims 9 and 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Russ, Cashman, Garg, U skali, and Ellis (US 2003/0149988 Al; publ. Aug. 7, 2003). Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Russ, Cashman, Garg, and Grannan (US 2007 /0277205 Al; publ. Nov. 29, 2007). 3 Appeal2015-002137 Application 12/724,332 ANALYSIS We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 8-9; see also Reply Br. 3--4) that the combination of Russ, Cashman, and Garg would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation "the plurality of content control devices comprising ... at least one third party device being selectively configurable to communicate with the MR- DVR, wherein the MR-DVR maintains a local trusted device list, the local trusted device list including a grouping of data associated with each of the content control devices." The Examiner found that the networked multimedia system (NMS) of Russ, which receives and forwards multimedia presentations to remote devices, corresponds to the limitation "a plurality of content control devices configured for accessing content." (Final Act. 3.) The Examiner also found that the third party devices of Cashman, in which the devices are on various networks and communicate with a set top box (STB), correspond to the limitation "at least one third party device being selectively configurable to communicate with the MR-DVR." (Id.) The Examiner further found that the trusted device list of Garg corresponds to the limitation "a local trusted device list." (Id. at 4.) The Examiner concluded that "it would have been obvious ... to modify Russ to allow for a third party device" (id. 3--4) and "it would have been obvious ... to provide the ... teachings of Garg to Russ and Cashman ... [for] identifying devices on the network, authenticating their allowed service access, and managing the adding, deleting or name changes of devices on the network" (id. at 5). We agree with the Examiner. Russ relates to broadband communications systems (ii 2), for example, satellite and cable television (ii 3). In reference to the prior art, Russ 4 Appeal2015-002137 Application 12/724,332 explains that a networked multimedia system (NMS) "allows a plurality of remote devices in the premises to be locally networked (i.e., home- networked)" such that "[t]he primary device receives and forwards upon request broadband multimedia presentations ... throughout the local network to the plurality of remote devices (i.e., client devices)." (i-f 5.) Russ further explains that "the ability to record an incoming video stream in digitized form onto a mass storage device, such as a hard disk drive" is known as a digital video recorder (DVR). (i-f 3.) Because Russ explains that the NMS allows remote devices in the premises to be locally networked, including a primary device that forwards multimedia to such remote devices, Russ teaches the limitation "a plurality of content control devices configured for accessing content." Cashman relates to multiple device control of cable-enabled devices. (i-f 3.) Cashman explains that set top box (STB) 40 can communicate with outside network 12, via an OpenCable Application Platform protocol (OCAP), including two way communications by third party devices. (i-f 46.) Because Cashman explains that STB 40 communicates with third party devices, Cashman teaches "at least one third party device." Garg relates to security mechanisms utilizing a trust system (Abstract), in particular, "shielding a protected device from unwanted communications originating from various devices" (i-f 16). Garg explains that "[l]ist of trusted devices 112 can be stored on a trusted server 120 accessible by protected device 102 via network 106" (i-f 34) and that such "list of trusted devices 112 can be saved on both trusted server 120 and protected device 102" (i-f 35). Furthermore, Figure 3 of Garg illustrates that trusted devices 112 list includes a game console, a cell phone, and a 5 Appeal2015-002137 Application 12/724,332 computer and that "[t]he list of trusted devices can include identities of trusted devices" (i-f 5). Because Garg explains that list of trusted devices 112 can be saved on protected device 102, Garg teaches the limitation "maintains a local trusted device list, the local trusted device list including a grouping of data associated with each of the content control devices." The combination of Russ, Cashman, and Garg is nothing more than incorporating the known third party devices of Cashman and the known trusted device list of Garg with the known networked multimedia system of Russ, to yield predictable results. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) ("The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."). This combination of Russ, Cashman, and Garg would result in utilizing the third party devices of Cashman with the DVR of Russ and thus, teaches the limitation "the plurality of content control devices comprising ... at least one third party device being selectively configurable to communicate with the MR-DVR." Furthermore, this combination also results in utilizing trusted device list 112 of Garg for designating the DVR of Russ and the third party devices of Cashman as protected devices, and accordingly, teaches the limitation "wherein the MR-DVR maintains a local trusted device list, the local trusted device list including a grouping of data associated with each of the content control devices." Appellants argue independent claim 1 is allowable for at least the reason that the combination of the combination of Russ, Cashman[,] and Garg does not disclose, teach, or suggest at least the plurality of content control devices comprising at least one third party device being selectively configurable to communicate with the MR- DVR, wherein the MR-DVR maintains a local trusted device list, 6 Appeal2015-002137 Application 12/724,332 the local trusted device list including a grouping of data associated with each of the content control devices. (App. Br. 8-9 (emphases omitted); see also Reply Br. 3.) Similarly, Appellants argue "[ e ]ven if the third party devices in Cashman are accessible by the MR-DVR, the cited references fail to teach including a third party device in the local trusted device list maintained by the MR[-]DVR." (App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 3.) However, the rejection of claim 1 is based on the combination of Russ, Cashman, and Garg, and Appellants cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references individually. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). As discussed previously, it is the combination of Russ, Cashman, and Garg that teaches the limitation "the plurality of content control devices comprising ... at least one third party device being selectively configurable to communicate with the MR-DVR, wherein the MR-DVR maintains a local trusted device list, the local trusted device list including a grouping of data associated with each of the content control devices." Appellants further argue "[ t Jo include the third party device in the local trusted device list, the MR[-]DVR would need access to the name of the third party device and further identifying information" and "[a]ccessing this information, if it is available at all in the teachings of the references, is not a trivial aspect of including the third party device in the local trusted device list." (Reply Br. 4.) Appellants have not presented any evidence to support the arguments that accessing the identifying information of the third party device "is not a trivial aspect" that could not be performed by one of ordinary skill in the art. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of 7 Appeal2015-002137 Application 12/724,332 factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F .3d 135, 139--40 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Russ, Cashman, and Garg would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation "the plurality of content control devices comprising ... at least one third party device being selectively configurable to communicate with the MR-DVR, wherein the MR-DVR maintains a local trusted device list, the local trusted device list including a grouping of data associated with each of the content control devices." Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and Appellants have not presented any separate substantive arguments with respect to this claim. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1. Independent claims 10 and 19 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not presented any separate substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 19, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. With respect to dependent claims 2, 3, 5-9, 11, 12, 14--18, and 20, Appellants merely argue that the additional cited references do not cure the deficiencies of Russ, Cashman, and Garg. (App. Br. 10, 13.) We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1, 10, and 19, from which claims 2, 3, 5-9, 11, 12, 14--18, and 20 depend. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 2, 3, 5-9, 11, 12, 14--18, and 20. 8 Appeal2015-002137 Application 12/724,332 DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is affirmed. 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 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation