Ex Parte CHOI et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 23, 201613709825 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/709,825 12/10/2012 Young-Woo CHOI Q200244 8536 23373 7590 12/28/2016 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC 2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 800 WASHINGTON, DC 20037 EXAMINER OCAK, ADIL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2426 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/28/2016 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): PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM sughrue@sughrue.com USPTO@sughrue.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YOUNG-WOO CHOI, MIN-JEONG KANG, SEUNG-TAK LEE, and DONG-HYUCKIM Appeal 2016-003702 Application 13/709,8251 Technology Center 2400 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, HUNG H. BUI, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Office Action rejecting claims 1—18, which are all the claims pending on appeal. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.2 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is KT Corporation. App. Br. 2. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, filed September 10, 2015 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed February 17, 2016 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed December 24, 2015 (“Ans.”); the Final Office Action, mailed March 12, 2015 (“Final Act.”); and the original Specification, filed December 10, 2012 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2016-003702 Application 13/709,825 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to “a method and an apparatus [shown in Figure 1] for interworking devices by authenticating a service request device and an interworking service.” Spec. 12. According to Appellants, “authentication for devices that request interworking services and requested interworking services are carried out and only devices and services registered by a user of an interworking target device are allowed to be interworked with the interworking target device.'1'’ Spec. 17 (emphasis added). Appellants’ Figure 1 shows an interworking service system, as reproduced below with additional markings. Msfofo difvkiif ( H>0) [1] transmits registration request to server (200) for registration 12] transmits interworking request to server (200) for service wf ' STB (400) INTERWORKING SERVICE PROVIDIN'.) SEPe.TR (200) i 1] registers mobile device (100) [2] transmits registration .request to server 1300) for registration V 13] if mobile de vice (100) is 'N-q?gis te red.=> t runs mi ts infogworking request to service (300) 'X NETWORK i Not U5 -TTT SB ...... (loo)....... (AiBETBEVIOi} (400) [1 ] searches address of STB (400) as target device, [2] transmits registration request to STB (400) MANAGEMENT SERVER (300) Appellants’ Figure 1 shows an interworking service system including: (1) request device (i.e., mobile device) 100, (2) service server 200, (3) management server 300, and (4) target device (i.e., set-top box “STB”) 400. 2 Appeal 2016-003702 Application 13/709,825 As shown in Figure 1, the request device (i.e., mobile device) 100 must register and authenticate with the target device (i.e., STB) 400, via service server 200 and management server 300 before controlling operation of the target device (i.e., STB) 400. For example, mobile device 100 transmits a registration request to STB 400, via service server 200 and management server 300, for registration and authentication. Spec Tflf 22, 24— 25, 29. Upon registration and authentication, mobile device 100 transmits an interworking request to control operation of STB 400 (i.e., interworking service), via service server 200 and management server 300. Spec 23, 46. Claims 1,5, and 9 are independent. Claim 1 is representative of Appellants’ invention shown in Figure 1, as reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A method performed by an interworking target device, the method comprising: receiving, from an interworking service providing server, a registration request for registering an interworking requesting device and an interworking service that is to be provided by the interworking service providing server; registering information about the interworking requesting device and information about the interworking service in response to the registration request, the information about the interworking service including information which identifies a predetermined function to be performed as a result of the registration request; receiving, from the interworking service providing server, an interworking request including the information about the interworking requesting device and the information about the interworking service; and interworking the interworking target device with the interworking requesting device if the information about the interworking requesting device and the information about the interworking service included in the interworking request matches with the registered information about the interworking 3 Appeal 2016-003702 Application 13/709,825 requesting device and the registered information about the interworking service, wherein the interworking the interworking target device with the interworking requesting device comprises causing the predetermined function to be executed between the interworking service providing server and the interworking target device, and wherein the interworking requesting device and the interworking service provided by the interworking service providing server are matched by the interworking service providing server. App. Br. 19 (Claims App.). Examiner’s Rejection and References Claims 1—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aldrey et al., (US 2009/0172757 Al; published July 2, 2009; “Aldrey”) and Oh et al., (US 2009/0064253 Al; published Mar. 5, 2009) (“Oh”). Final Act. 6-22. ISSUE Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue presented on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Aldrey and Oh teaches or suggests the disputed limitations: (1) information about the interworking service including information which identifies a predetermined function to be performed as a result of the registration request and (2) interworking the interworking target device with the interworking requesting device if the information about the interworking requesting device and the information about the interworking service included in the interworking request matches with the registered information about the interworking requesting device and the registered information about the interworking service, 4 Appeal 2016-003702 Application 13/709,825 as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 5 and 9. App. Br. 11—16; Reply Br. 5—10. ANALYSIS In support of the rejection of independent claim 1, and similarly claims 5 and 9, the Examiner finds Aldrey teaches Appellants’ claimed “method performed by an interworking target device” (i.e., set-top box “STB” shown in Figure 1) including most of the limitations, except for an explicit disclosure of (1) “information about the interworking service including information which identifies a predetermined function to be performed as a result of the registration request” and (2) “interworking the interworking target device with the interworking requesting device if the information about the interworking requesting device and the information about the interworking service included in the interworking request matches with the registered information about the interworking requesting device and the registered information about the interworking service” as taught by Oh. Final Act. 6—9 (citing Aldrey H 19, 30, 35, 39, 54, 59, 63, Figs. 1, 4; Oh 125, Fig. 1, Abstract). Aldrey’s Figure 1 shows Appellants’ claimed “method performed by an interworking target device” (i.e., STB) as reproduced below with additional markings for illustration. 5 Appeal 2016-003702 Application 13/709,825 Aldrey’s Figure 1 shows system 100 for providing remote set-top box (STB) management of one or more STBs 101a—10 In from remote application 113 at end terminal (i.e., mobile device) 107, via network 103, 109. As shown in Aldrey’s Figure 1, a remote application 113 (at mobile device 107) permits subscribers (users) to convey control commands for configuring STBs 101a—101 n and managing services provided by STBs 101a—101 n, including, for example, (1) recording functions of one or more STBs 101a—10In, (2) content selection, and (3) making content available at one or more STBs 101a—10In for retrieval, via networks 103, 109. Aldrey 120. This way “subscribers [(users)] are no longer limited to configuring an STB ‘from the same room,’ but instead may access the media-based device, and associated subscription service, from a remote location” via a mobile device 107 over one or more data networks. Aldrey ^fl[ 18—19. Likewise, “a remotely located subscriber . . . can monitor and control content availability, 6 Appeal 2016-003702 Application 13/709,825 create channel offerings, manipulate recording features, order ‘on-demand’ content, and/or modify personalization options, as well as influence other suitably controllable features of one or more STBs lOla-lOln located at, for instance, another location.” Aldrey |14 (emphasis omitted). Aldrey also describes that a new user (at a mobile device 207, shown in Figure 2) can subscribe and “may register as a new subscriber of the remote management service, as well as obtain sufficient authentication information for establishing future sessions,” and “registration procedures may prompt the user to identify all user devices (e.g., STBs lOla-lOln and/or end terminal(s) 107) that the user may employ to interact with system 100 features, e.g., remote applications 209a-209c.” Aldrey Tflf 63—64 (emphasis omitted). According to Aldrey: system 100 [shown in Figure 1] may include an authentication module (not shown) configured to perform authorization/authentication services and determine whether users are indeed subscribers to the remote management service. An authentication schema may require a user name and password, a key access number, a unique machine identifier (e.g., media access control (MAC) address), etc., as well as a combination thereof. Once a subscriber has authenticated a presence on system 100, the user may bypass additional authentication procedures for executing later applications (e.g., media content streaming instances and/or control command sessions). Data packets, such as cookies, may be utilized for this purpose. Thus, once an STB or content source is authenticated, connections between the STBs lOlolOlw and the end terminal(s) 107 may be established directly or through server 105 and/or MSP 117. Aldrey 139 (emphasis added). 7 Appeal 2016-003702 Application 13/709,825 For example, such an “authentication module 233 [shown in Figure 2] may be provided at STB 201 to initiate or respond to authentication schemes of, for instance, service provider network 103 or various other content providers, e.g., broadcast television systems 123, third-party content provider systems 125, or servers 105.” Aldrey 1 51 (emphasis omitted). “In other exemplary embodiments, authentication module 233 can authenticate a user [, i.e., at mobile device 107, shown in Figure 1] to allow them to control and configure other STBs (e.g., STB 103a-103n) and/or subscription services.” Aldrey 1 52 (emphasis omitted). Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s factual findings regarding Aldrey, particularly regarding the STB’s reception of (1) a registration request, and (2) an interworking request upon authentication of the mobile device. Nor do Appellants challenge the Examiner’s rationale for combining Aldrey and Oh. Instead, Appellants present several arguments against Oh. For example, Appellants argue Oh does not teach or suggest: (1) a “registration request for registering an interworking requesting device,” (2) “the interworking target device with the interworking requesting device comprises causing the predetermined function to be executed between the interworking service providing server and the interworking target device,” and (3) a “‘predetermined function’ which is identified within a registration request or which is to be performed as a result of a registration request.” App. Br. 11—16; Reply Br. 5—10. According to Appellants, neither the “recording” function disclosed by Oh, nor various control functions disclosed by Aldrey, constitute Appellants’ claimed “predetermined function” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 12, 15. 8 Appeal 2016-003702 Application 13/709,825 We do not find any of Appellants’ arguments persuasive. At the outset, we note both Appellants’ Specification and claims 1—18 are not a model of clarity. For example, claim 1 recites at an interworking target device (i.e., STB) “registering information about the interworking requesting device and information about the interworking service in response to the registration request, the information about the interworking service including information which identifies a predetermined function to be performed as a result of the registration request” after receiving “a registration request” from an interworking service providing server. In contrast, Appellants’ Specification describes the STB 400, as shown in Figure 2, “registers [1] the interworking service that is to be provided by the interworking service providing server 200 and registers [2] the mobile device 100 that is to be interworked with the set-top box 400 in response to the registration request received.” Spec. Tflf 41, 65. As such, the additional limitation recited in Appellants’ claim 1, i.e., “information about the interworking service including information which identifies a predetermined function to be performed as a result of the registration request” is redundant and can only be interpreted3 as encompassing any registration action taken in response to a registration request. 3 During examination, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 9 Appeal 2016-003702 Application 13/709,825 Nevertheless, to the extent that Appellants’ claims 1—18 can be understood in the context of Appellants’ Specification, we find the Examiner’s factual findings regarding Aldrey and Oh are supported by evidence. In particular, we find the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants’ arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 2—7; see also Final Act. 6—9. As such, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and explanations provided therein. Id. For example, Aldrey (not Oh) is cited for teaching a “registration request for registering an interworking requesting device.” Final Act. 7 (citing Aldrey 63, 64). In addition, Appellants’ claimed “predetermined function” can also be broadly interpreted to encompass any “monitor and control content” disclosed by Aldrey, including: “create channel offerings, manipulate recording features, order ‘on-demand’ content, and/or modify personalization options, as well as influence other suitably controllable features of one or more STBs 101a- lOln.” Aldrey 114 (emphasis omitted). In addition to Oh’s disclosure, we also note Aldrey teaches the disputed limitations of Appellants’ claim 1, and similarly claims 5 and 9, including: (1) “information about the interworking service including information which identifies a predetermined function to be performed as a result of the registration request” in the form of registration actions taken in response a registration request, i.e., user’s identification of devices (e.g., STBs) and entry of appropriate device information as disclosed in paragraphs 63—64 of Aldrey; and (2) “interworking the interworking target device with the interworking requesting device if the information about the interworking requesting device and the information about the interworking service included in the interworking request matches with the registered 10 Appeal 2016-003702 Application 13/709,825 information about the interworking requesting device and the registered information about the interworking service” in the form of user’s remote control of STB from mobile device after authentication as disclosed in paragraphs 51—52 of Aldrey. Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error and sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1,5, and 9, and their respective dependent claims 2—4, 6—8, and 10-18, which Appellants do not argue separately. App. Br. 17—18. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—18. 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 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation