Ex Parte Ashley

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 18, 2012

09950484 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ALEXIS ASHLEY ____________________ Appeal 2012-003719 Application 09/950,484 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 9, 11-19, and 21-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2012-003719 Application 09/950,484 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to handling broadcast data tokens. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative. 1. A data processing apparatus operable in a network including at least one content source for providing a plurality of content, a resolution utility for providing content access data relating to the forthcoming delivery of each of the plurality of content from the at least one content source, and at least one token supply source for providing content identifiers for each of the plurality of content, the apparatus comprising: a receiver arranged to receive a content identifier from the at least one token supply source other than said at least one content source, the content identifier including an address of said resolution utility; and a processor coupled with said receiver and configured to use the address of the resolution utility from said received content identifier to establish a communications link with said resolution utility, to supply the received content identifier thereto, and in return, to receive the content access data, wherein the receiver includes a plurality of channels for accepting delivery of the plurality of content from the at least one content source using content access data of each of the plurality of content. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-9, 11-19, and 21-28 under 35 U.S.C § 102(e) based upon the teachings of Wong (US 7,673,315). Appeal 2012-003719 Application 09/950,484 3 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Wong teaches all the elements of Appellant’s claimed invention, particularly that a token can include program criteria such as a URL link (Ans. 4). The Examiner also finds Wong teaches scheduling data is separately defined from a content identifier and is used to access content from a content source (Ans. 8). Additionally, the Examiner finds Wong teaches a database is equivalent to a resolution utility as it “maintains and provides retrieval of content access data in the form of local tuning space and scheduling data” (Ans. 8-9). Appellant contends Wong teaches the URL link is information regarding the identity of a program and not delivery of content as claimed (App. Br. 11). Appellant also contends Wong does not disclose an independent resolution utility that supplies content access data and the content identifier including an address of the resolution utility. Further, Appellant contends the tokens in Wong are obtained from a server and are not from a token supply source that provides content identifiers (App. Br. 11-12). Thus, Appellant asserts Wong does not teach a separate content source, a resolution utility that provides content access data relating to delivery of the content, and a token supply source that provides content identifiers (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 3). We agree with Appellant that Wong does not teach these separate features (see Reply Br. 2-4). We also agree the database of Wong does read on the claimed resolution utility that provides content access data relating to delivery of the content (App. Br. 3). That is, the resolution utility is a separate claim element from that of the token service system of the entity from which content is being recorded (Reply Br. 2). Appeal 2012-003719 Application 09/950,484 4 We therefore conclude Wong does not anticipate independent claims 1, 6, and 17 and the dependent claims argued together therewith (App. Br. 10). DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9, 11-19, and 21-28 is reversed. REVERSED tkl/peb