Ex Parte Frey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2017

14621080 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2017)

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.
40205/03902(MTV-039) 1143
EXAMINER
SALTARELLI, DOMINIC D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
14/621,080 02/12/2015
30636 7590 09/26/2017
FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP
150 BROADWAY, SUITE 702
NEW YORK, NY 10038
Stewart Alan FREY
09/26/2017 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 STEWART ALAN FREY, VITALIY VAYSBERG,
FRANCES HENRY DILLON, IV, and MATTHEW JOSEPH WOOD
Appeal 2017-002031
Application 14/621,0801
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 26-44, which constitute all the pending claims.
Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Viacom International, Inc. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-002031
Application 14/621,080
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to media packaging and delivery.
Abstract; Spec. 1—3. Claim 26 is exemplary of the matter on appeal
(emphasis added):
26. A computer-implemented method of packaging media files
comprising:
transmitting, by a client device, a request from a user to a media
packaging server, the request including a packaging template and a
media asset ID identifying a media file requested by the user of the
client device, the packaging template identifying requested metadata
associated with the media asset ID and a format for the media file and
metadata requested by the user of the client device;
receiving, by the client device, a delivery package from the
media packaging server, the delivery package including a media file
and metadata matching the media asset ID and metadata in the request
in the format indicated in the packaging template;
and
extracting, by the client device, the media file and metadata
from the delivery package based upon the format indicated in the
packaging template.
App. Br. 9 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
Claims 26—33, 35, 37-41, and 43 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Reza (US 8,903,895 B2; iss. Dec.
2, 2014) (“Reza”). Final Act. 3-5.
Claims 34, 36, 42, and 44 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reza. Final Act. 5—6.
2
Appeal 2017-002031
Application 14/621,080
ANALYSIS
The §102 rejection
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Reza discloses or
suggests the claim 26 limitation the packaging template identifying
requested metadata associated with the media asset ID and a format for the
media file and metadata requested by the user of the client device. App. Br.
3—6; Reply Br. 2—5 (hereinafter “the disputed limitation”). According to
Appellants, claim 26 requires the metadata and format to be requested by the
user whereas in Reza the media attributes (format) are determined by the
server based on properties of the client device 5, not based on user request.
Id. at 4 (citing Reza 7:7—17, 18:24—29). In particular, Appellants’ argue “the
system of Reza receives no input related to any desire the user may have
concerning metadata or file format” and “[accordingly, Reza does not
disclose or suggest any user selected file metadata or format for the
requested media file.” Id. at 5.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the claims do not recite requesting
a format by the user and:
Claim 26 specifically states a single user request is transmitted
from the client device. This user request includes a media asset
ID identifying a media file requested by the user and a packaging
template identifying metadata requested by the user of the client
device. Two more items of information are included in the
packaging template, identification of metadata associated with
the media asset ID and a format for the media file. Said additional
items are not recited as being requested by the user of the client
device, only that they are included in the request sent from the
client device. The claims only require the user to request a media
file and metadata.
Ans. 2—3.
3
Appeal 2017-002031
Application 14/621,080
Claim terms in a patent application are given the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, as understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument and agree, instead,
with the Examiner’s claim interpretation that the claim does not require the
user to request the format. The claim does not expressly recite that all
recited items are subject to user request nor that the format cannot be subject
to a request from a client device. Additionally, we note the Specification
presents exemplary description, for example, “[t]he user can also provide to
the media packaging server a template identifying various requirements of
the customer.” Spec. 123; see also 1 59 “[t]he embodiments described
herein are examples for illustration only and not to limit the technology in
any way.”
Applying this broad, but reasonable, claim interpretation, the
Examiner finds the claim only requires the user to select a media file and
metadata and this is disclosed by Reza. Ans. 3. In particular:
Reza is relied upon to meet these limitations, wherein the
examiner cites columns 6 through 7, which discloses a process
for selecting a media file and associated metadata (user selects a
VID and also programs their client device with a preferred
language, see Reza col. 6 line 60 - col. 7 line 6 and col. 7 lines
30-41). The additional limitations which are not expressly
selected by the user, metadata associated with the media asset ID
and format for the media file, are further met by Reza (e.g. codec
used and other attributes, see col. 7 lines 7-18 and 42-48).
Id.
4
Appeal 2017-002031
Application 14/621,080
Regarding Appellants’ argument that Reza teaches entirely server side
processing and is not relevant to request from a user or client device, the
Examiner finds:
Reza explicitly states that specific media files are described in
terms of specific media attributes, such as the encoding format
of the media file (col. 7 lines 42-48). The MAT, which is
generated by the client, specifies the encoding format when
requesting a media file (col. 7 lines 7-18). The server side
processing performed by Reza is the selection of a media file
specified in a client request (the VID) that is in the specific
encoding format requested by the client device (the MAT), which
is analogous to appellant's claimed invention.
Id. at 4.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument and agree, instead,
with the findings of the Examiner. Reza discloses the disputed limitation of
claim 26, as broadly but reasonably interpreted. A claim is anticipated only
if each and every element as set forth in the claims is found, either expressly
or inherently described in a single prior art reference, and arranged as
required by the claim. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814
F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 26, and
independent claim 37 which is commensurate in scope and argued together
with claim 26. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 27—33,
38-41, and 43 as these claims are not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
5
Appeal 2017-002031
Application 14/621,080
The § 103(a) rejection
Appellants rely on dependency to independent claims 26 and 37,
discussed supra, and additionally argue the Examiner errs in finding Official
Notice teaches the requested encryption format of claims 34 and 42 and the
requested encryption format of claims 36 and 44. App. Br. 7. According to
Appellants, the inclusion of these elements in a packaging element is not
shown in the cited art nor is it well known as asserted by the Examiner in
Official Notice. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner’s findings wherein Official Notice is set forth in the Final
Rejection and additional specific references are provided for support in the
Answer. Ans. 4 (citing US 2002/0180782) (Natsuno), see abstract; US
2010/0095127) (Banerjee) see abstract); Final Act. 5—6.
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claims 34, 36, 42, and
44.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 26—33, 35, 37-41,
and 43 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 34, 36, 42, and 44
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6