Ex Parte Liu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 9, 2016

13532552 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/532,552 06/25/2012
33356 7590 06/13/2016
SoCAL IP LAW GROUP LLP
310N. WESTLAKE BLVD. STE 120
WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91362
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Wanqian LIU
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.
G207.Pl5C75 1647
EXAMINER
REAGAN, JAMES A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2016 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):
USPTO@socalip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID W ANQIAN LIU
Appeal2014-003067 1
Application 13/532,5522
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed
Sept. 24, 2013) and Reply Br. ("Reply Br.," filed Sept. 24, 2013), and the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Oct. 24, 2013), and Final Office Action
("Final Act.," mailed Apr. 9, 2013).
2 Appellant identifies RMG Networks as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal2014-003067
Application 13/532,552
CLAIMED fNVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention "relates to a method and apparatus for
connecting a network of electronic signs." Spec. 1: 18-19.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A content distribution method, comprising the steps
of:
providing a plurality of electronic signs distributed among a
plurality of locations;
providing each electronic sign with a universal, unique
identifier, wherein each electronic sign is associated with an owning
entity;
selectively downloading content published by any of a plurality
of content providers to said electronic signs;
said owners of said electronic signs and said content providers
collaboratively determining what content is downloaded to said
electronic signs and times at which said content is presented on said
electronic signs; and
providing a set of functions for managing at least one electronic
sign from among said plurality of electronic signs and content
presented on said electronic signs, wherein said set of functions is
presented via a Web interface which is provided to owners of
electronic signs and content providers to access said set of functions,
wherein said Web interface configured to perform the steps of:
registering and managing at least one electronic sign from
among said plurality of electronic signs in a content network,
wherein each electronic sign is registered using its unique
identifier; and
registering content providers and uploading electronic
content from said content providers to a server, wherein content
uploaded to said server is targeted to one or more electronic
signs based on any or all of said registration information for the
electronic signs and said owners of said electronic signs
selecting and approving content to be presented on their
electronic signs.
2
Appeal2014-003067
Application 13/532,552
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-
type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No.
8,209,261.
Claims 1, 2, 4-17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wolinsky (US 2003/0229549 Al, pub. Dec. 11, 2003) and
Skeadas (US 2005/0261928 Al, pub. Nov. 24, 2005).3
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wolinsky, Skeadas, and Official Notice.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
Appellant does not present any response to the Examiner's rejection
of claims 1-22 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double
patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 8,209,261.
Therefore, we summarily sustain the Examiner's rejection.
Obviousness
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 4-8
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Wolinsky,
on which the Examiner relies, does not teach or suggest "uploading
electronic content from said content providers to a server, wherein content
uploaded to said server is targeted to one or more electronic signs based on
3 We treat the identification of claims 3 and 18 in the statement of rejection
at page 8 of the Final Action as inadvertent error because claims 3 and 6
instead are rejected separately at page 12 of the Final Action.
3
Appeal2014-003067
Application 13/532,552
any or all of said registration information for the electronic signs and said
owners of said electronic signs selecting and approving content to be
presented on their electronic signs," as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 14-16;
see also Reply Br. 2--4. The Examiner cites Wolinsky as disclosing the
argued limitation. Final Act. 5-6 (citing Wolinsky, i-fi-194-95); see also Ans.
3-6 (citing Wolinsky, i-fi-195, 145-150, 162, 186, 189, 191, Figs. 8-10).
Wolinsky relates to a system and method for performing out-of-home
advertising. Wolinsky i13. Subscribers, such as retailers and out-of-home
advertisement agencies, operate as private broadcasters to provide
advertising or content delivery services for advertisers and subscribers. Id.
Rather than having the service provider operate as the broadcaster (i.e.,
performing booking and scheduling operations for advertisers), subscribers
privately do so, thereby "maintain[ing] control over the type and quality of
content being displayed." Id. i-f 15. For example, a home office (or user) of
the subscriber may upload content to a server of the service provider and
communicate therewith to establish a playlist for the content. Id. i195. The
playlist prescribes the times the content is played and visual appliance(s) on
which the content is played. Id. Content approvers of the subscriber may
approve the uploaded content before it is played. Id. i-f 186.
The service provider provides infrastructure equipment to the
subscriber's enterprises or locations, such as local network equipment and
visual appliances. Id. i194. Content administrators of the subscriber or
service provider are able to assign security privileges to the content. Id.
i-fi-f 186, 189.
The Examiner interprets the subscriber's communication with the
server to establish a playlist for content, as described by Wolinsky, to meet,
4
Appeal2014-003067
Application 13/532,552
uploading electronic content from said content providers to a
server, wherein content uploaded to said server is targeted to
one or more electronic signs based on any or all of said
registration information for the electronic signs and said owners
of said electronic signs selecting and approving content to be
presented on their electronic signs[,]
as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 9; see also Ans. 3. In other words, the
Examiner interprets Wolinsky' s subscriber as the claimed content provider
and Wolinksy's service provider as the claimed owner of electronic signs.
In the Answer, the Examiner additionally cites Wolinsky at paragraphs 145-
150, 162, 186, 189, 191 and Figures 8-10 as disclosing the argued
limitation. Ans. 3-6.
However, we agree with Appellant that none of the portions of
W olinsky relied on by the Examiner teach or suggest "owners of said
electronic signs selecting and approving content to be presented on their
electronic signs," as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 3--4; see also Appeal Br.
15. Rather; Wolinsky describes the subscribers alone; who do not own the
electronic signs, as performing these functions. See Wolinsky i-fi-f 15, 94,
186.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 4-8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Independent claims 9, 15, and 21
Independent claims 9, 15, and 21 include language substantially
similar to the language of claim 1 and stand rejected based on the same
rationale applied in rejecting claim 1. Final Act. 11. Therefore, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 9, 15, and 21, and
5
Appeal2014-003067
Application 13/532,552
dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Dependent claims 3 and 18
Claims 3 and 18 depend, directly or indirectly, from independent
claims 1 and 15, respectively. The rejection based on Official Notice, in
combination with W olinsky and Skeadas, fails to cure the deficiency in the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 15. Therefore, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
for the same reasons set forth above with respect to the independent claims
from which they respectively depend.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-22 on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are reversed.
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
6