Ex Parte Armstrong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 21, 2016

12057683 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/057,683 03/28/2008 Brooke Allysoun Armstrong
21186 7590 04/25/2016
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, PA
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
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.
2043.428US6 1788
EXAMINER
HU, JENSEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/25/2016 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BROOKE ALL YSOUN ARMSTRONG,
JOHN ROBERT BEHRENS, ABIE HADJITARKHANI,
ALEXANDER BLAIR IRELAND, STEPHEN JOHN MULLER,
and NANCY KIYOKO NARIMATSU
Appeal2014-006596
Application 12/057 ,683
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-006596
Application 12/057,683
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to "methods and systems for providing
media content for display in a designated area." (Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A method for providing media content for display in a
designated area, the method comprising:
determining an ability of a client to playback media content
locally by sending a query to the client over a network to query
the client, the client including the designated display area and a
content display area, the determining being automatic and being
initiated by a server without an action by a user; and
providing over the network a version of the media content to
the client for display in the designated display area, the version
of the media content appropriate for the ability of the client to
playback media content locally, the providing for display in the
designated display area being automatic and being initiated by
the server.
THE REFERENCES AND THE REJECTION
Claims 1-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Agraharam et al. (US 6,035,339, issued Mar. 7, 2000) and Landsman et
al. (US 6,314,451, issued Nov. 6, 2001). (See Final Act. 2-12.)
1 Appellants identify eBay, Inc. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.)
2
Appeal2014-006596
Application 12/057,683
APPELLANTS' CONTENTION
Appellants argue that the rejections are improper because the
combination fails to teach or suggest "determining an ability of a client to
playback media content locally by sending a query to the client over a
network to query the client, the client including the designated display area
and a content display area, the determining being automatic and being
initiated by a server without an action by a user," as recited in claim 1, and
corresponding limitations in claims 10, 19, and 20. (See App. Br. 9--14.)
ANALYSIS
Agraharam teaches a method for delivering information over a
network. "When an end-user sends a request to the network information
delivery device 110 for information, the network interface 308 receives the
request and sends a request to the controller 302" and "[t]he controller 302
processes the information request according to the flowchart as shown in
FIG. 6." (Agraharam 5:1-26 & Fig. 6.) In Figure 6, the system (1) receives
the end-user request for information (at S 1000), (2) determines end-user
information output requirements (at S1002); (c) packages information based
on the end-user information output requirement (at S1004), and (d) sends
packaged information to the end-user (at S1006). (See id. 5:18-26.) Within
step S 1002, the system attempts to access the end-user terminal with pre-
existing authority (S2004) or by requesting access (S2002 & S2006). (See
id. Fig. 7 A & 5:27-38.)
Appellants argue that the subject claim language is not met because
"Agraharam relates 'an action by a user,' as recited by claim 1, in the form
of obtaining a 'grant of access' or a 'grant of access authority' any one of
3
Appeal2014-006596
Application 12/057,683
which is required to obtain the 'information delivery parameters' from the
end-user terminal." (App. Br. 13 (emphasis omitted).) We do not agree
with Appellants' analysis. The claim requires that the "determining" step be
"initiated ... without an action by a user." In Agraharam, the system
automatically initiates the determining step at S 1002, without an action by a
user. The user's request for information "initiates" the entire process, not
the subsidiary determining step, which takes place automatically after the
overall process is initiated. While it is true that the user in Agraharam must
agree to access, the access grant takes place either before the determining is
initiated (in the case of the pre-existing authority reflected at S2004) or after
the determining is initiated (in the case of the access request reflected at
S2002 & S2006).
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well
as the rejections of claims 2-26, which are not separately argued.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-26 are 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
4