Ex Parte CHEN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 31, 2019

12856466 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/856,466 08/13/2010 108911 7590 02/04/2019 Artegis Law Group, LLP / Netflix 7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104 Houston, TX 77095 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Eli CHEN 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. NETF/0026 2182 EXAMINER MCADAMS, BRAD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2456 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/04/2019 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): algdocketing@artegislaw.com kcruz@artegislaw.com j matthews @artegislaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ELI CHEN and GREG PETERS Appeal 2018-003 883 Application 12/856,466 1 Technology Center 2400 Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JAMES B. ARPIN, and IRVINE. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-18 and 20-23, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Technology The application relates to "synchronizing playback of digital content on two or more different content players." Spec. Abstract. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Netflix, Inc. App. Br. 3. Appeal2018-003883 Application 12/856,466 Illustrative Claim Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference with the argued limitations emphasized: 1. A method for playing a digital content title synchronously across a plurality of endpoint devices, the method compnsmg: transmitting, to a content server, a playback session identifier that uniquely identifies a session of two or more sessions, of which each session facilitates synchronous playback of the digital content title across multiple endpoint devices; transmitting, from a first endpoint device and to the content server, an event request that includes a playback command and a specified time for executing the playback command, wherein the first endpoint device and the content server comprise different machines coupled to one another via a communications network; receiving, by the first endpoint device and from the content server, an event command that includes the playback command and the specified time for executing the playback command; and scheduling, by the first endpoint device, the playback command for execution at the specified time based on a local time signal that has been synchronized to a time reference signal. References and Rejection2 Claims 1-18 and 20-23 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Bradley (US 2007/0250761 Al; publ. Oct. 25, 2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellants' arguments in their entirety, we refer to the above-mentioned Appeal Brief filed August 17, 2017 ("App. Br."), as well as the following documents for their respective details: the Final Office Action mailed May 18, 2017 ("Final Act."), the Examiner's Answer mailed December 26, 2017 ("Ans."), and Appellants' Reply Brief filed February 26, 2018 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appeal2018-003883 Application 12/856,466 2007) and Schmidt (US 2009/0249222 Al; publ. Oct. 1, 2009). Final Act. 3-8. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' arguments. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Because Appellants argue the claims collectively (see App. Br. 10-12 ), our decision with respect to claim 1 is dispositive of all issues on appeal. Appellants argue error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 based on the limitations emphasized above. Id. More specifically, Appellants argue that the references do not teach or suggest a client device both transmitting and receiving the same playback command. Id.; see Reply Br. 3--4. Appellants acknowledge that "Bradley discloses that a user can start synchronized playback across multiple client devices 50 through the user interface of the media application 22 executing on the host 20" and that "the host device 20 sends a command to each client device 50 to initiate playback." App. Br. 10 (citing Bradly ,r 45). Appellants do not dispute that Schmidt discloses "client devices send[ing] timed playback requests to the server device." Reply Br. 3 (restating the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments (Ans. 9-10)); see Schmidt ,r 23. Appellants' argue error because neither reference individually discloses the same playback command being transmitted and then received. App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 3--4. 3 Appeal2018-003883 Application 12/856,466 Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because they are directed to the references individually. Id. "Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references." In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As such, Appellants' arguments do not persuasively establish error in the Examiner's rejection, which is based on the combined teachings of the references. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-18 and 20-23, which Appellants argue therewith. See App. Br. 12. DECISION For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-18 and 20-23. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 4