Ex Parte Golobrodsky et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 22, 2018

13319029 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/319,029 12/20/2011 105857 7590 05/24/2018 NOVICK, KIM & LEE, PLLC 3251 Old Lee Highway, Suite 404 Fairfax, VA 22030 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Oleg Golobrodsky 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. PKN0260179 1923 EXAMINER FOGG, CYNTHIA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2421 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/24/2018 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): docket@nkllaw.com skim@nkllaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte OLEG GOLOBRODSKY, GIDEON DRORI, YITZHAK PETERBURG, and MOSHE PETERBURG Appeal2016-007786 Application 13/319,029 Technology Center 2400 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-7, 9, 11, and 23-30. Claims 8, 10, and 12-22 have been canceled. See App. Br. 23-25 (Claims App'x). An oral hearing was held on April 24, 2018. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is TV Terminal Ltd. App. Br. 3. Appeal2016-007786 Application 13/319,029 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' Invention Appellants' invention generally relates to "providing a TV viewer with PC services." Spec. 3:11-12. Claims 1and11, which are illustrative of the claimed invention, read as follows: 1. A communication device for use at a TV viewer premises, configured to integrate at the TV viewer premises signals received from at least two different sources, so as to enable displaying of one integrated TV signal on a TV device of the TV viewer, said communication device comprising: a user interface adapted to receive input signals from the TV viewer; a first transceiver adapted to communicate wirelessly with a service provider via a remote server, wherein information comprised in signals unicasted from said remote server is transmitted towards said communication device in a format that is compatible with capabilities of the TV device of said TV viewer; a second transceiver adapted to communicate with a TV broadcaster and to receive TV broadcasted signals therefrom; a processor configured to process the unicasted signals and TV broadcasted signals, and integrate information contained therein into one integrated TV signal; and a TV interface adapted to allow forwarding the one integrated TV signal directly to the TV device of said TV viewer. 11. A method for providing a viewer of a TV device with a capability to display on said TV device one integrated TV signal that comprises signals received from at least two different sources, the method comprising the steps of: at a first server, receiving from a communication device associated with said TV device and located at the TV viewer premises an indication that indicates a request to be provided with information, wherein said communication device 1s configured to communicate wirelessly with said first server; 2 Appeal2016-007786 Application 13/319,029 at the first server, retrieving information which relates to capabilities of the TV device to enable uni casting signals to the communication device, the signals comprising information requested by the viewer in a format that is compatible with the capabilities of the TV device to allow integrating the information comprised in the unicasted signals with TV broadcasted signals for displaying one integrated TV signal thereof on the TV device; establishing a communication path between said communication device and a source for said requested information via said first server; forwarding said requested information in a format that is compatible with the capabilities of the TV device towards said communication device, integrating information comprised in the signals unicasted from the first server to the communication device, with information comprised in signals broadcasted by a TV broadcaster, into one TV signal; and forwarding the integrated TV signal directly to the TV device for display. References The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Abato US 2002/0112002 Al Aug. 15,2001 Reisman US 2004/0031058 Al Feb. 12,2004 Zenith US 2006/0130109 Al June 15, 2006 Chiu US 2007 /0011604 Al Jan. 11, 2007 Brooks et al. US 2009/0031384 Al Jan.29,2009 Rejections Claims 1, 3, 11, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Chiu. Final Act. 4--11. 3 Appeal2016-007786 Application 13/319,029 Claims 2, 4--7, and 24--28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Chiu and Abato. Final Act. 11- 13, 15-18. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Chiu and Brooks. Final Act. 13-14. Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Chiu and Reisman. Final Act. 14--15. Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Chiu and Zenith. Final Act. 18-19. ANALYSIS Claim 1 Appellants contend Chiu does not disclose "[a] communication device for use at a TV viewer premises, configured to integrate at the TV viewer premises signals received from at least two different sources," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9-16; Reply Br. 4--5. Chiu relates to "a system for multimedia content integration with interactive communication between media producer and media consumer." Chiu i-f 8. Chiu discloses that the system "provides integration of various types of media into a single signal. For example, a television signal and an internet webcam signal can be combined into a single video signal so that users can view the integrated media on a single display device at the same time." Chiu i-f 12. Chiu's system includes a content integration platform coupled via a user link to a user device. Chiu i-f 28. A media source sends media content to the content integration platform over a source link, and the content integration platform delivers the media content to the user device via 4 Appeal2016-007786 Application 13/319,029 the user link. Chiu i-f 31. Chiu discloses that "[t]he content integration platform 120 may be located remotely from either or both the media source 301 or the user device 341." Id. The Examiner finds because Chiu discloses that the content integration platform may be located remotely from either the media source or the user device, Chiu discloses "if the CIP [content integration platform] is located remotely from the media source then it is located locally at the user device or at the viewer's premise as cited in Claim 1." Ans. 2. The Examiner further finds Chiu discloses that communication between the content integration platform communicates and the user device can be accomplished by Bluetooth or WiFi and [ o ]ne of ordinary skill in the art understands that Bluetooth and WiFi connection methods are used for short range communications. Bluetooth is primarily used for pairing devices that are in close proximity of one another to communicate with each other. WiFi technology allows devices to connect to a wireless network and has a range of about 20 meters. When Bluetooth and WiFi technologies are used, the CIP must be located in close proximity of the device to which it is connected. Ans. 2 (citing Chiu i-f 37). Appellants argue that the Examiner's interpretation of paragraph 31 of Chiu is incorrect. App. Br. 12. Specifically, Appellants argue: The Office Action incorrectly quoted this paragraph 31 as "may not be located remotely from the user device 341". (Office Action paragraph 10). This paragraph more correctly states that CIP 120 "may be located remotely from either or both the media source 309 or the user device 141". It is submitted that this part of the reference should be read as: "may be located remotely from either or both the media source 309 or located remotely from the user device 141." 5 Appeal2016-007786 Application 13/319,029 App. Br. 12. Appellants further argue "[t]here is absolutely nothing in the reference to state explicitly that CIP 120 is located at the premise of the user," as required by claim 1. App. Br. 12. Appellants argue Chiu's teaching of the use of Bluetooth for communicating between CIP 120 and a user device does not disclose the disputed limitation because "Chiu never states what the output devices are and it is speculative to assume that a television is connected by Bluetooth to CIP 120" and "speculation [cannot] be used to prove anticipation, but an unambiguous explicit statement in the reference, as understood by one skilled in the art, must be made that CIP 120 is located at the viewer's premise." App. Br. 13. Appellants further argue even if "CIP 120 is at the disclosed 'user's device' as argued in the Office Action, this does not mean that CIP 120 is at the viewer's premises" because "[ o ]ne could speculate that the user's device could be located at a storefront. Chiu is silent about this relationship." App. Br. 13. We are not persuaded. As discussed supra Chiu discloses that "[t]he content integration platform 120 may be located remotely from either or both the media source 301 or the user device 341." Chiu i-f 31. Chiu, therefore, discloses that the content integration platform may be located remotely from the media source or the user device. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand this statement as disclosing a configuration in which the content integration platform is located remotely only from the media source and, therefore, is located locally with respect to the user device. Appellants further contend Chiu does not disclose "a first transceiver adapted to communicate wirelessly with a service provider via a remote server" and a second transceiver adapted to communicate with a TV 6 Appeal2016-007786 Application 13/319,029 broadcaster and to receive TV broadcasted signals therefrom," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11, 15-16; Reply Br. 5. Appellants argue the Examiner "without explanation equates Content Integration Platform 120 as being both the claimed first and second transceivers." App. Br. 11; see also App. Br. 15-16. Appellants argue Chiu's connectors 521-524 do not disclose the claimed first and second transceivers because the connectors "are passive units and a transceiver is an active unit." Reply Br. 5. We are not persuaded. The definition of "transceiver" includes "[a] device that both transmits and receives data" and "[a] device that connects a host interface to a network." IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms 1198 (Seventh Edition, 2000). Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a "transceiver" includes a device that connects a host interface to a network, which is consistent with Appellants' Specification. See Spec. 12: 1-6 ("In order to enable receiving of broadcasted TV signals at communication device 120[,] ... the communication device may have according to the present example an analog inlet and/or a digital one."). 2 Chiu discloses that media sources 502-504 are coupled to the content integration platform by links 512-514, respectively. Chiu i-fi-135-36. Chiu further discloses that "[t]hese sources are fed into the [content integration] device 120 through a plurality of input connectors 521- 524. Chiu i136. Chiu, therefore, discloses that each input connector is a device that connects the content integration platform to a network for receiving content from a respective media source. As such, we are not 2 Appellants' Substitute Specification, filed Nov. 4, 2011. 7 Appeal2016-007786 Application 13/319,029 persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Chiu discloses the claimed first and second transceivers. We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Chiu fails to disclose that the first transceiver is adapted to communicate wirelessly with a service provider via a remote server because Chiu does not mention a remote server. App. Br. 16. Chiu discloses that "[a]vailable sources for media entertainment include multiple satellite systems, cable systems, streaming audio and video over internet sources in multiple formats, DVD and VCD, streaming and downloadable formats from a variety of vendors, and dozens of smaller distinct codecs (encoder/ decoder formats)." Chiu i-f 9. As is well known in the art, a server is used to provide streaming and downloadable media content over internet sources and, as discussed supra, Chiu discloses that the media source (e.g., server) may be remote from the content integration platform. Chiu i-f 31. Appellants further contend Chiu does not disclose "integrating information comprised in the signals unicasted from the first server to the communication device, with information comprised in signals broadcasted by a TV broadcaster, into one TV signal," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 15. Appellants argue "Chiu discloses the CIP as the integration device to integrate a media source signal with a user signal; not the claimed integration with a unicasted signal from the remote server." App. Br. 15. Appellants further argue "Chiu does not disclose the integration of two signals from sources that do not include the User." Id. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Chiu discloses that the content integration platform provides integration of various types of media into a single signal. Ans. 3 (citing Chiu i-f 12). In particular, the Examiner finds, 8 Appeal2016-007786 Application 13/319,029 and we agree, Chiu discloses integrating a television signal and an internet webcam signal into a single video signal. Id. Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence showing that Chiu's internet webcam signal fails to disclose a signal unicast from a first server, as required by claim 1. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1, and claims 3 and 30, which are not separately argued with particularity. See App. Br. 17, 21. Claims 2, 4--7, 9, and 23-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 based on Chiu in combination with various additional references. Appellants do not separately argue claims 2, 4--7, 9, and 23-29; rather, Appellants rely on the arguments presented with respect to claim 1. See id. Accordingly, we conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 2, 4-- 7, 9, and 23-29 for the reasons discussed supra. Claim 11 Appellants contend Chiu does not disclose "at the first server, retrieving information which relates to capabilities of the TV device to enable unicasting signals to the communication device," as recited in claim 11. App. Br. 19. We agree. The Examiner finds Chiu discloses that media content is provided to the content integration platform in a variety of formats, including video using a video-on-demand protocol, and that the signal detect unit 712 of the content integration platform detects the format of the input signal and passes information identifying the format to the signal decoder 714. Final Act. 7 (citing Chiu, Figs. 2, 7A, i-fi-128, 29, 39). The Examiner finds Chiu further 9 Appeal2016-007786 Application 13/319,029 discloses that the content integration platform converts the various types of content into a variety of formats compatible with different user devices and, therefore, that Chiu discloses the disputed limitation. Id. However, the Examiner relies on the media source, not the content integration platform, for disclosing the claimed "first server." Ans. 5 ("[T]he 'first server' of claim 11, is the server which allows the user to connect to the pizza delivery service order page."). The Examiner's findings are insufficient to show that the media source (e.g., "the server which allows the user to connect to the pizza delivery service order page") retrieves information relating to capabilities of the TV device, as required by claim 11. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 11. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7, 9, and 23-30. We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 11. 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 10