Ex Parte Cesario et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2016

13054297 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/054,297 01114/2011
22879 7590 04/01/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paul Michael Cesario
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.
82603019 5682
EXAMINER
TRAN,BAOG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL MICHAEL CESARIO, DAVID H. HANES, and
CHARLES MAR TIN McJIL TON
Appeal2014-005235
Application 13/054,297
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
l"IT TT""""1-.i. T ' 1 • • , , • T'lo , , T 1
Gtt1:1,l''>J, Aamznzsrranve rarem Juage.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-18, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to a network attached storage (NAS)
device for multimedia file distribution. (Abstract.)
Appeal2014-005235
Application 13/054,297
Claim 1 is exemplary, with the disputed limitation in italics:
1. A network attached storage (NAS) device for multimedia
file distribution, comprising:
a processing device;
a network interface connected to the processing device; and
a storage device connected to the processing device, the storage
device comprising:
a set of predetermined multimedia file requests;
a set of multimedia files;
information restricting playback to a predetermined
number of multimedia files; and
a set of executable instructions which, when executed by
the processing device, cause the processing device to:
transmit one or more requests from the set of
predetermined multimedia file requests to a media server
via the network interface;
receive one or more multimedia files responsive to
the transmitted one or more requests;
add the received one or more multimedia files to
the set of multimedia files;
transmit, according to the information restricting
playback to the predetermined number of multimedia
files, selected one or more multimedia.files from the set
of multimedia files to one or more controllers via the
network interface for display via a display connected
with each of the one or more controllers; and
remove one or more multimedia files from the set
of multimedia files responsive to a predetermined file
removal process.
Claims 1, 2, and 4--10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
anticipated by Karlberg (US 2007 /0282905 Al; publ. Dec. 6, 2007).
2
Appeal2014-005235
Application 13/054,297
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Karlberg and Marman (US 2009/0219411 Al; publ. Sept. 3, 2009).
Claims 11-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Karlberg and Munetsugu (US 2009/0222867 Al; publ. Sept. 3, 2009).
ANALYSIS
§ 102 Rejection-Karl berg
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 8-9; see also
Reply Br. 3--4) that Karlberg does not describe the limitation "transmit,
according to the information restricting playback to the predetermined
number of multimedia files, selected one or more multimedia files," as
recited in independent claim 1.
The Examiner found that the controller for the host terminal of
Karlberg, which can send a multimedia file having digital rights
management (DRM) information to a media center, corresponds to the
limitation "transmit, according to the information restricting playback to the
predetermined number of multimedia files, selected one or more multimedia
files." (Ans. 2-3.) We agree with the Examiner.
Karlberg relates to electronic devices, in particular, "computer
program products for playing multimedia files, such as audio files, video
files, and/ or image files." (i-f l.) Figure 3 of Karl berg illustrates a
multimedia file playback system 1 OOA (i-f 28), including mobile wireless
communication terminal 1 OA, additional participant wireless communication
terminals lOB-lOE, and media center 130 (i-f 70). Karlberg explains that
"[t]he controller 30 of the host terminal lOA may then execute playback of
3
Appeal2014-005235
Application 13/054,297
the retrieved multimedia file by sending the multimedia file to the media
center 130." (i-f 99.) Karlberg further explains that:
[i]f the [Digital Rights Management] rights attached to the
multimedia file are insufficient to support playback of the
media by the host terminal lOA and/or the media center 130,
the host terminal lOA may send an appropriate notification to
the participant terminal lOB-E that submitted the multimedia
file and may remove the multimedia file from the play list.
(Id.) Because controller 30 of Karlberg sends the multimedia file to media
center 130 and playback can be restricted by Digital Rights Management
attached to such multimedia file, Karlberg discloses the limitation "transmit,
according to the information restricting playback to the predetermined
number of multimedia files, selected one or more multimedia files."
Appellants argue "according to Karlberg, the host terminal 1 OA
retrieves the next multimedia file to be played, during a play mode of the
host terminal lOA" but "[t]he host terminal lOA does not transmit,
according to the information restricting playback to the predetermined
number of multimedia files, selected one or more multimedia files to one or
more controllers by the network interface." (App. Br. 9; see also Reply
Br. 3.) Next, Appellants argue "ensuring that no more than a certain number
of files from a particular participant are played in a row, as stated in i1 [0093]
of Karlberg, has nothing to do with the subject matter of claim 1" and "[t ]he
notion of performing a transmission of selected one or more multimedia
files to one or more controllers via the network interface according to
information restricting playback to the predetermined number of multimedia
files clearly does not exist in i1 [0093] of Karlberg." (App. Br. 9.) Last,
Appellants argue "that the DRM information is checked to determine
whether playback is allowed" and "[ c ]hecking the DRM information to
4
Appeal2014-005235
Application 13/054,297
determine whether playback is allowed is not the same as transmitting,
according to the information restricting playback to the predetermined
number of multimedia files, selected one or more multimedia files to one or
more controllers." (Reply Br. 4 (emphasis omitted).) Contrary to
Appellants' multiplicity of arguments, Karl berg expressly explains that
"[t]he controller 30 of the host terminal lOA may then execute playback of
the retrieved multimedia file by sending the multimedia file to the media
center 130" and "the host terminal lOA may check Digital Rights
Management (DRM) information associated with the multimedia file."
(if 99.)
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Karlberg discloses the
limitation "transmit, according to the information restricting playback to the
predetermined number of multimedia files, selected one or more multimedia
files."
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a). Claims 2, 4, and 5 depend from independent claim 1, and
Appellants have not presented any additional substantive arguments with
respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4,
and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect
to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 6 and 9 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims. (See App.
Br. 10.) We sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 9, as well as dependent
claims 7, 8, and 10, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1 ..
5
Appeal2014-005235
Application 13/054,297
§ 103 Rejection-Kar/berg and Marman
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claim 3 separately (App. Br. 10), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim are
separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue that "[i]n view of the
allowability of base claim 1 over Karlberg, the obviousness rejection of
dependent claim 3 over Karlberg and Marman has been overcome." (Id.)
We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with
respect to claim 1, from which claim 3 depends. Accordingly, we sustain
this rejection.
§ 103 Rejection-Karl berg and Munetsugu
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 11-18 separately (App. Br. 11-12), the arguments presented do not
point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue that "[i]n view of
the allowability of base claims 1 and 6 over Karl berg, the obviousness
rejection of claims 11 and 14 over Karlberg and Munetsugu has been
overcome." (App. Br. 11.) Appellants also argue that "[i]n view of the
allowability of base claims over Karlberg the obviousness rejection of the
foregoing dependent claims [12, 13, and 16-18] over Karlberg and
Munetsugu has been overcome" and "[i]n view of the allowability of base
claim 9 over Karlberg, the obviousness rejection of dependent claim 15 over
Karlberg and Munetsugu has been overcome." (Id. at 12.) Moreover,
Appellants merely provide a conclusory statement that "[ t ]here would be no
reason to modify a user terminal to become a media server that performs
billing with respect to playback of multimedia files" and "a person of
6
Appeal2014-005235
Application 13/054,297
ordinary skill in the art would have found no reason to incorporate the
subject matter of Munetsugu into Karlberg to achieve the subject matter of
claim 11." (Id. at 11.) Accordingly, Appellants have not presented any
substantive arguments with respect to these claims. See In re Lovin, 652
F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We are not persuaded by these arguments
for the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1, 6, and 9, from which
claims 11-18 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-18 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7