Ex Parte Andersson

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 18, 2013

11333931 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2013)

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. 11/333,931 01/18/2006 Stefan Andersson PS05 0583US1 7466 58342 7590 09/19/2013 WARREN A. SKLAR (SOER) RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP 1621 EUCLID AVENUE 19TH FLOOR CLEVELAND, OH 44115 EXAMINER PHUONG, DAI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2644 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/19/2013 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 STEFAN ANDERSSON ____________ Appeal 2011-002640 Application 11/333,931 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JASON V. MORGAN, ERIC B. CHEN, and BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 7, 11, 13–18, 20–24, and 27–32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2011-002640 Application 11/333,931 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates to managing content in portable electronic equipment by lifting a user restriction upon satisfaction of a user obligation. Abstract. Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A method of managing content in a portable electronic equipment, comprising: receiving and storing content with the portable electronic equipment, the content having a data structure that includes: a file in the form of an audio file, a video file or an image file; a use restriction that is liftable by the portable electronic equipment in response to receipt of user input via a user input device of the portable electronic equipment that satisfies a user obligation associated with the content; and a component to at least one of install or make a software call to a plug-in module for managing the user obligation; and executing the plug-in module to render content management over the content apart from a server, including: receiving input from the user consistent with the user action to satisfy the user obligation; and lifting the use restriction to give the user access to the content, the lifting carried out by the portable electronic equipment upon satisfaction of the user obligation. Appeal 2011-002640 Application 11/333,931 3 Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 11, 13–14, 16, 18, 21–24, 27, and 30–32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stoker (U.S. 2007/0124248 A1; May 31, 2007) and Shau (U.S. 2007/0155418 A1; July 5, 2007). Ans. 3-7. Claims 17 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stoker, Shau, and Takaragi (U.S. 2006/0212664 A1; Sept. 21, 2006). Ans. 7-8. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stoker, Shau, and Rathus (U.S. 2006/0285663 A1; Dec. 21, 2006). Ans. 8-9. Claims 20 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stoker, Shau, and Silvester (U.S. 2005/0250472 A1; Nov. 10, 2005). Ans. 9. ANALYSIS We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 3-6) that the combination of Stoker and Shau would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitations of “receiving and storing content . . . having a data structure that includes . . . a use restriction that is liftable . . . in response to receipt of user input . . . that satisfies a user obligation associated with the content[] and a component to at least one of install or make a software call to a plug-in module for managing the user obligation.” Independent claim 24 recites similar limitations and we accept Appellant’s grouping of independent claims 1 and 24 together in addressing Appellant’s arguments. Appeal 2011-002640 Application 11/333,931 4 The Examiner finds that Stoker describes a method of managing content in portable electronic equipment that receives and stores content. Ans. 3. The Examiner acknowledges that Stoker does not disclose a user restriction that is lifted in response to user input satisfying a user obligation associated with the content, but finds that Shau describes the claimed user restriction and a component to at least one of install or make a software call to a plug-in module for managing the user obligation. Ans. 4 (citing Shau ¶¶ [0118]-[0120]). The Examiner finds that Shau’s description of checking or verifying the identity of the user corresponds with the claimed use restriction. Ans. 4, 11, 15, 18-20. Additionally, the Examiner finds that Shau’s description of entertainment software that plays entertainment files corresponds to the disputed plug-in module limitation. Ans. 4, 11-12, 16, 18-21. We agree with the Examiner. Stoker relates to transfer of content, such as podcasts, to a consumer appliance, such as a laptop or an iPod device. Stoker ¶¶ [0019], [0047]; see also Ans. 3, 10. Stoker describes the transfer of content from a computer system maintained by a content provider to a consumer appliance upon authentication. Stoker ¶ [0047], [0054]; see also Ans. 3, 10. Shau relates to installing entertainment player functions and content onto a cellular telephone. Shau ¶ [0118]; see also Ans. 4, 11. Shau further describes security methods for identity verification. Shau ¶¶ [0118]-[0120]; see also Ans. 4, 11. Additionally, Shau describes that if a user’s identity is verified, Shau’s software may play music files downloaded in an attachment using entertainment player software. Shau ¶¶ [0118]-[0120]; see also Ans. 4, 11-12. Appeal 2011-002640 Application 11/333,931 5 Appellant argues that the claim requires received and stored content having a self-contained, unitary data structure. App. Br. 4, 6; Reply Br. 2. Appellant further argues that Shau fails to describe the claimed content item because Shau does not teach that the content’s data structure itself includes the use restriction and Shau’s entertainment player software is installed separately from the music file. App. Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim because claim 1 does not recite “unitary” or “content item,” but instead recites, “the content having a data structure.” The USPTO gives claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Even under Appellant’s proposed dictionary definitions (App. Br. 4 (citing Alan Freedman, The Computer Desktop Encyclopedia 214 (2d ed. 1999); Microsoft Computer Dictionary 144 (5th ed. 2002)), we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because Shau describes a physical layout or organization of data that includes: (1) a use restriction requiring verification of the user’s identity prior to playing downloaded songs and (2) a component that makes a software call to a plug-in entertainment module (Ans. 4, 11-12, 16, 18-21). Although one of Appellant’s cited definitions refers to an organization scheme, such as a record or array (App. Br. 4), these are exemplary organization schemes that are not recited in claim 1. Additionally, Appellant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be lead away from modifying the teachings of the proposed prior art combination because Shau states that it is important to note that Shau’s security methods provide service providers. Reply Br. 3-4. We are not Appeal 2011-002640 Application 11/333,931 6 persuaded that Shau’s identification of an advantage of providing security would teach away from the proposed combination. Modifying Stoker’s disclosure of transfer of content, such as podcasts, to a consumer appliance with Shau’s disclosure of security methods for calling entertainment player software and verifying identity of a user upon a user’s selection to play a downloaded music file attachment is no more than a predictable use of familiar prior art elements according to their established functions, therefore rendering the recited invention obvious. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Stoker to include the techniques of Shau to allow a user to listen to music on a phone. Ans. 4-5. We find that the Examiner has articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the techniques of Shau into the system of Stoker. Thus, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and claims 3–5, 7, 11, 13–18, 20–23, and 27–32, not separately argued (App. Br. 3, 6-7). Accordingly, we sustain that rejection. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 7, 11, 13–18, 20–24, and 27–32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). Appeal 2011-002640 Application 11/333,931 7 AFFIRMED msc