Apple Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 3, 20212021000386 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/876,715 01/22/2018 Jennifer L. C. FOLSE 106842151101 (P31590USC1) 1018 161038 7590 08/03/2021 Apple c/o Kubota & Basol LLP 445 S. Figueroa Street Suite 2140 Los Angeles, CA 90071 EXAMINER GEE, JASON KAI YIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2495 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/03/2021 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@kuba-law.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JENNIFER L. C. FOLSE, JONATHAN LOCHHEAD, FLORIAN GRUENKE, and WILLIAM M. BACHMAN Appeal 2021-000386 Application 15/876,715 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JUSTIN BUSCH, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-000386 Application 15/876,715 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a device-level authorization for viewing content. The Specification describes: In some embodiments, media (e.g., recorded sports games, recorded movies, live sports games, etc.) is available to an electronic device via one or more applications installed on the device. For example, the electronic device optionally has applications associated with HBO and ESPN downloaded on it, via which the electronic device accesses media from secondary content providers such as HBO (e.g., movies) and ESPN (e.g., sports), respectively. Such applications optionally require a user of the electronic device to have an account with a primary content provider, such as a cable or satellite provider that provides access to a bundle of content from a plurality of different secondary content providers for a fixed monthly or yearly fee, and to authorize the applications with the account with the primary content provider before allowing the electronic device to access media from those applications. In some implementations this authorization generally occurs on a per- application basis, however when each application is performing its own authorization the user may have to navigate through a large number of authorization processes (one for each app) which may all be organized slightly differently with different requirements and different steps for authorization. This process is complex and many users will give up before completing the authorization for all of the secondary content providers with media that the user is entitled to access via a subscription with the primary content provider. The examples of the disclosure are directed to authorizing an electronic device with a primary content provider such that various applications on the electronic device are able to use that authorization to provide the electronic device with access to media, without requiring separate authorization of each application with the primary content provider, to make the process of authorizing access to media from different secondary content providers more efficient, thus improving the machine-person interface. Spec. ¶ 127. Appeal 2021-000386 Application 15/876,715 3 Appellant’s claims realize the concepts described above by reciting a process by which users receive authorization to access content from multiple sources via a single account, whereby additional applications that can access content via that same single account are identified and offered for downloading to the user. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: at an electronic device that is in communication with a display and one or more input devices: receiving, via the one or more input devices, an input for initiating a process for authorizing a user to access first content from multiple sources via a single account; and in response to receiving the input for initiating the process for authorizing the user to access first content from multiple sources via the single account: authorizing the user to access the first content via one or more applications installed on the electronic device; and prompting the user to download additional applications that have access to the first content via the single account, wherein the additional applications are not downloaded on the electronic device; receiving, via the one or more input devices, an input for downloading one or more of the additional applications; and in response to receiving the input for downloading the one or more of the additional applications, downloading the one or more of the additional applications. Appeal Br. 26 (Claims Appendix). Appeal 2021-000386 Application 15/876,715 4 REFERENCES2 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Rao US 9,247,014 B1 Jan. 26, 2016 Naggar US 2013/0332838 A1 Dec. 12, 2013 Zheng US 2014/0075574 A1 Mar. 13, 2014 Shaw US 2014/0365919 A1 Dec. 11, 2014 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Naggar, Shaw, and Rao. Non-Final Act. 3–9. Claims 3, 4, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the Naggar, Shaw, Rao, and Zheng. Non-Final Act. 9–10. ISSUE Appellant’s arguments raise the following issue for consideration: Has the Examiner erred in finding the cited references teach or suggest “receiving, via the one or more input devices, an input for initiating a process for authorizing a user to access first content from multiple sources via a single account,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner cites Naggar as teaching the limitation “receiving . . . an input for initiating a process for authorizing a user to access first content from multiple sources via a single account.” Final Act. 3–4. More specifically, the Examiner finds Naggar’s description of a user logging into an account and utilizing login information to permit 2 Citations to the references are to the first named inventor/author only. Appeal 2021-000386 Application 15/876,715 5 access to content in a content distribution system teaches this claim limitation. Final Act. 3 (citing Naggar ¶¶ 31, 77). Appellant argues “the Examiner maps the ‘single account’ to the user account of the cross-platform application that enables access to the cross- platform application. But nowhere does Naggar disclose that this same account is able to provide other applications with access to the content available in the cross-platform application.” Appeal Br. 13. We agree. Naggar describes a “user interface providing access to content from multiple content providers, each of the multiple content providers having a separate subscription associated with the user.” Naggar, Abstract. Naggar provides access to content via a cross-platform application which “may provide a single interface to select and view content from multiple sources.” Naggar ¶ 31. Naggar teaches that “the cross-platform application may permit a user . . . to login to an account . . . and access catalog information . . . for content from multiple providers.” Id. However, consistent with Appellant’s argument, Naggar indicates that separate account credentials are used to access available content from partner content providers. For example, Naggar states that “cross-platform application 405 may enable user device 260 to perform functions . . . [including] permitting a user of user device 260 to login to an account with partner content providers 250 and/or web content providers.” Naggar ¶ 51. However, Naggar does not teach that merely logging into to the cross-platform application provides access to content from content partner providers that require authorization or authentication. Indeed, Naggar makes clear that separate subscriptions are used: “User interface 540 may include an interactive client interface that allows a user to provide input, such as user passwords, preferences, and Appeal 2021-000386 Application 15/876,715 6 selections from the list of available content.” Naggar ¶ 58. As such, we are persuaded the Examiner has not sufficiently demonstrated that Naggar teaches “authorizing a user to access first content from multiple sources via a single account” as recited in claim 1, which we interpret as requiring authorizing the user to be granted access to at least two sources with a single account (i.e., set of login credentials). In other words, the claim requires a “single sign on” feature to access content from multiple, otherwise inaccessible sources that each require authentication in order to access the content therein. Even to the extent Naggar teaches allowing a user access to content from multiple sources (e.g., partner providers or web content providers) via a single application (i.e., the cross-platform application), Naggar does not teach or suggest the credentials associated with the cross-platform application as providing the necessary authorization to the user to access content from those sources. Rather, Naggar merely authorizes the user to access the cross-platform application. As noted above, Naggar provides an interface to access content from multiple sources but, to the extent a source requires a user to be authorized to access the content, Naggar teaches providing an interface into which the user must enter such credentials. In other words, the user is not authorized to access content from multiple sources via a single account (i.e., merely by logging in to the cross-platform application) because the user still must enter the credentials associated with the particular source from which the user wishes to access content in order to access content from that source. The Examiner does not rely on the remaining references as teaching or suggesting this claim limitation, and we agree with Appellant that Shaw and Appeal 2021-000386 Application 15/876,715 7 Rao do not remedy this deficiency in Naggar. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Remaining Claims Claims 10 and 11 are independent and recite limitations commensurate in scope to the argued limitation above. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 11 under § 103. The remaining claims are dependent, and stand together with their respective independent claims. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 5–8, 10, 11 103 Naggar, Shaw, Rao 1, 2, 5–8, 10, 11 3, 4, 9 103 Naggar, Shaw, Rao, Zheng 3, 4, 9 Overall Outcome 1–11 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation