Ex Parte Chavez

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 2012

11475340 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2012)

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. 11/475,340 06/26/2006 David L. Chavez 4366-105-DIV 1862 22442 7590 11/29/2012 Sheridan Ross PC 1560 Broadway Suite 1200 Denver, CO 80202 EXAMINER OBEID, MAMON A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3685 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/29/2012 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 DAVID L. CHAVEZ ____________________ Appeal 2011-004905 Application 11/475,340 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-004905 Application 11/475,340 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 23-27, 29-33, 58, 60-68, and 78-881. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The claims are directed to portability and distribution of enterprise wide licenses and licenses for copying of software and video material (Spec., 1:1-4). Claim 23, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 23. A method, comprising: (a) receiving, by a content provider, license information from a digital content receiver in a first endpoint of a customer over an Internet connection, the license information comprising an identifier of the digital content, a customer identifier of the customer, a number of copies of the digital content requested, and payment information; (b) determining, by the content provider, the availability of at least one copy license based on said license information and a number of copy licenses previously granted to the customer, the determining step (b) comprising the sub-steps; (B1) accessing a database containing copy license permissions to determine if copy licenses are available for said digital content; (B2) verifying a proper payment; and (B3) determining said number of copies based on said payment and said copy license availability; (c) determining, by the content provider, that a copy license is available; (d) in response, communicating, by the content provider, a license response to the digital content receiver, the license 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed July 28, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 24, 2010). Appeal 2011-004905 Application 11/475,340 3 response comprising the digital content identifier, the number of copies of the digital content that are permissible, and a use allowed for the license; (e) determining that the license response results in a change to a number of copy licenses at the one or more other endpoints associated with the customer; and (f) in response to step (e), communicating a response to the one or more other endpoints, the response including an adjustment to the number of copy licenses possessed by the one or more other endpoints. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner has rejected: 1. Claims 23-27, 29-33, 58, 60-68, and 78-88 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 2. Claims 23, 24, 26, 27, 29-33, 58, 61, 62, 64-68, 78-81, 83-86, and 88 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Christiano (US 5,671,412, iss. Sep. 23, 1997), Barber (US 5,390,297, iss. Feb. 14, 1995), and Misra (US 7,171,662 B1, iss. Jan. 30, 2007). 3. Claims 82 and 87 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Christiano, Barber, Misra, and Subler (US 5,646,992, iss. Jul. 8, 1997). ANALYSIS After careful consideration of all of Appellant’s arguments concerning all rejections and all claims (App. Br. 7-16), we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and rationales in response to those arguments, as set forth on pages 12-22 of the Examiner’s Answer. Appeal 2011-004905 Application 11/475,340 4 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 23-27, 29-33, 58, 60-68, and 78- 88 is AFFIRMED. AFFIRMED mls