Ex Parte Blair et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2012

10561024 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RONALD LYNN BLAIR, JEFFERY LYNN TAYLOR, ROBERT
EUGENE TRZYBINSKI, and BRUCE JOSEPH TENEROWICZ
____________

Appeal 2011-006717
Application 10/561,024
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 1, 2, 5-13 and 16-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2011-006717
Application 10/561,024

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to monitoring delivered
media objects to remote devices (Spec. 1:4-5).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for issuing a parental monitoring query command
for determining a media object being rendered on a remote
device, comprising the steps of:

transmitting, from a monitoring device, a query
requesting identification information for a media object being
multicasted through a multicast group to a remote device from a
host device;

receiving multicast information in response to said query,
wherein said multicast information indicates a multicast address
and port which is used to multicast said media object through
the multicast group to the remote device from the host device;

joining the multicast group with said received multicast
information to receive said media object;

resolving said multicast address and port information to
identify attributes of said media object; and

providing, from the monitoring device, a leave command
to the host device to remove said remote device from said
multicast group if said media object is objectionable so that
receipt of said media object by said remote device is disabled in
real-time.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 9-13 and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Ellis (US Patent Application
Publication No. 2005/0251827 Al, November 10, 2005) (hereinafter “Ellis”)
Appeal 2011-006717
Application 10/561,024

3
and Bosloy (European Patent Application Publication No. 1,119,120 A2,
July 25, 2001).
The Examiner rejected claims 6, 7, 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Ellis, Bosloy, and Ellis (US Patent No.
6,774,926 B1, August 10, 2004) (hereinafter Ellis ‘926).
The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Ellis, Bosloy, and Olson (Open Memorandum
from S. Olson et al., Network Working Group, Support for IPv6 in Session
Description Protocol (SDP) (June 2002)).

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend neither Ellis nor Bosloy, alone or in combination,
discloses or suggests enabling “a parent at a ‘monitoring device’ to
determine which ‘media object’ (e.g., television program) is currently being
provided by a ‘host device’ for viewing by a child at a ‘remote device’” (Br.
6-7).
We do not agree with Appellants and adopt the Examiner’s findings
as our own. Additionally, we find, as does the Examiner (Ans. 4-5 and 12-
13), that paragraph [0103] of Ellis discloses allowing a user (parent) to
change a channel of a remote location, particularly if a program being
watched by a child in another room is one that the child should not be
watching, contrary to Appellants assertions (Br. 7). We further adopt the
Examiner’s findings regarding Bosloy (see Ans. 13-14).
As Appellants provided arguments with respect to claim 1, stating the
same arguments apply for the remaining claims (Br. 9-10), we conclude the
Appeal 2011-006717
Application 10/561,024

4
Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-13 and 16-19 as obvious over
the collective teachings of the cited references.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-13 and 16-19 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)(1)(iv)(2010).

AFFIRMED

peb