Ex Parte Karaoguz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 12, 2012

10672654 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JEYHAN KARAOGUZ and JAMES D. BENNETT ____________________ Appeal 2011-006640 Application 10/672,654 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before GREGORY J. GONSALVES, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-006640 Application 10/672,654 2 STATEMENT OF CASE 1 The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1-7, 9-19, 21-31, and 33-40, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The Appellants invented a system supporting the exchange and consumption of media using a common user interface. Specification ¶ 09. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some paragraphing added]: 1. A system supporting the communication and consumption of media using a common user interface, the system comprising: a television display in a first home; a first storage for storing media, in the first home, having a first associated network address, the first storage communicatively coupled to the television display; a first graphical user interface for display on the television display, the first graphical user interface having at least one view comprising graphical representations of one or more media channels supporting the communication and consumption of media, and having a first look and feel; 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Nov. 23, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar.4, 2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 1, 2011), and Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed Jun. 30, 2010). Appeal 2011-006640 Application 10/672,654 3 a personal computer monitor in a second home; a second storage for storing media, in the second home, having a second associated network address, the second storage communicatively coupled to the personal computer monitor; a second graphical user interface for display on the personal computer monitor, the second graphical user interface having at least one view comprising graphical representations of the one or more media channels supporting the communication and consumption of media, and having a second look and feel; software resident in a first memory at the first home and a second memory at the second home, the software enabling a user at the first home to construct, at the first home, the one or more media channels from user selected and scheduled media content, the software also enabling closed and secure communication of the one or more media channels to members of a user group, in a peer to peer manner, from the first home to the second home; software that receives a request that identifies one of the first and second associated network addresses, and responds by identifying the other of the first and second associated network addresses to support the communication via the communication network of media between the first storage and the second storage for consumption; and the first graphical user interface and the second graphical user interface being substantially the same graphical user interface, the first look and feel and the second look and feel being substantially the same. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Ellis US 6,774,926 B1 Aug. 10, 2004 Parker US 2004/0125789 A1 Jul. 1, 2004 Schoen US 7,321,969 B2 Jan. 22, 2008 Appeal 2011-006640 Application 10/672,654 4 REJECTION Claims 1-7, 9-19, 21-31, and 33-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Ellis, Schoen, and Parker. ISSUE The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-7, 9-19, 21-31, and 33-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ellis, Schoen, and Parker turns on whether Ellis, Schoen, and Parker teaches or suggests “software also enabling closed and secure communication of the one or more media channels to members of a user group, in a peer to peer manner, from the first home to the second home.” ANALYSIS The Appellants contend that the combination of Ellis, Schoen, and Parker fails to teach or suggest “software also enabling closed and secure communication of the one or more media channels to members of a user group, in a peer to peer manner, from the first home to the second home,” as required by claim 1. App. Br. 18-20 and Reply Br. 5-7. The Appellants specifically argue that Schoen fails to describe “closed and secure communication…in a peer to peer manner.” Id. We agree with the Appellants. The Examiner found that the claims require a “peer to peer” manner (i.e. architecture or network) and a “peer to peer” architecture is well-known in the art as “communication between 2 computers with the same communication protocol.” Ans. 21 (citing Microsoft Computer Dictionary 397). However, as argued by the Appellants, Microsoft Computer Dictionary further defines that a “peer to Appeal 2011-006640 Application 10/672,654 5 peer” architecture requires each computer to be considered equal in terms of responsibilities and each acts as a server to others in the network, such a dedicated server is not required as in client/server architectures. Microsoft Computer Dictionary 397 and Reply Br. 6-7. Schoen, as found by the Examiner, describes an instant messaging system that includes an instant messaging server that is in communication with a plurality of instant messaging devices or clients. Ans. 21-22 (citing Schoen 6:1-65 and Fig. 1). That is, Schoen describes a client/server architecture because it uses a server in communication with a plurality of client devices. Since the claims require “peer to peer,” we do not agree with the Examiner that Schoen describes “software also enabling closed and secure communication of the one or more media channels to members of a user group, in a peer to peer manner, from the first home to the second home.” Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 or dependent claims 2-7 and 9-13. Independent claims 14 and 25 recite this same limitation and therefore we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 14 and 25 and dependent claims 15-19, 21-24, 26-31, and 33-40 for the same reasons. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 9-19, 21-31, and 33-40. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-7, 9-19, 21-31, and 33-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ellis, Schoen, and Parker. Appeal 2011-006640 Application 10/672,654 6 DECISION To summarize, our decision is as follows.  The rejection of claims 1-7, 9-19, 21-31, and 33-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ellis, Schoen, and Parker is not sustained. REVERSED ELD