Ex Parte McCoy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2018

13077088 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/077,088 03/31/2011 Charles McCoy
51518 7590 11/30/2018
MA YER & WILLIAMS PC
55 Madison A venue
Suite 400
Morristown, NJ 07960
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.
201003463.02 4948
EXAMINER
DASGUPTA, SHOURJO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2018 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@mwpatentlaw.com
mwolf@mwpatentlaw.com
kwilliams@mwpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES McCOY, LING JUN WONG,
and TRUE XIONG
Appeal2018-003200
Application 13/077 ,088 1
Technology Center 2100
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3, 4, 7-17, 19, 20, and 23-31, which are all of the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to using a second display (such as a tablet,
smart phone, or laptop) to "allow a user to replay or resume playback of a
recently-played asset ... on a different content playback device." Spec. ,r 3.
1 According to Appellants, the real parties in interest are Sony Corp. and
Sony Network Entertainment International LLC. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-003200
Application 13/077,088
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A method of enabling a user to access a recently-played asset,
compnsmg:
i. upon playback of an asset on a first content playback
device, adding an asset identification corresponding to the asset
to a recently-played list, the asset streamed from a service
provider, the recently-played list stored on a management server,
the management server providing access to a plurality of service
providers;
ii. generating a recently-played list for display on a first
second display, including formatting the recently-played list for
display on the first second display, the first second display
selected from the group consisting of: a tablet computer, a smart
phone, a laptop computer, an internet appliance, or a computing
device with internet access, the first second display controlling
playback on the first content playback device, the recently-
played list including an entry corresponding to the asset
identification, the recently-played list including entries from
various service providers;
iii. receiving a request for an asset on the recently-played
list to be played back, the request transmitted from the first
second display, the request for the asset indicating that the asset
on the recently-played list is to be played back on a second
content playback device, the first second display controlling
playback on the second content playback device, the second
content playback device distinct from the first content playback
device; and
iv. causing the requested asset to be played back on the
second content playback device.
Rejections
Claims 1, 7-9, 16, 17, 23, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as obvious over the combination of Coburn (US 2013/0254207 Al;
2
Appeal2018-003200
Application 13/077,088
Sept. 26, 2013) and Van Horck (US 2009/0216351 Al; Aug. 27, 2009).
Final Act. 2.
Claims 3, 4, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
obvious over the combination of Coburn, Van Horck, and Rauber
(US 2010/0082561 Al; Apr. 1, 2010). Final Act. 7.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over the
combination of Coburn, Van Horck, and Sansom (US 2013/0014190 Al;
Jan. 10, 2013). Final Act. 8.
Claims 11 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious
over the combination of Coburn, Van Horck, and Cockrell
(US 2008/0117922 Al; May 22, 2008). Final Act. 8.
Claims 12 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious
over the combination of Coburn, Van Horck, and Schenk (CN 101129051A;
Feb. 20, 2008). Final Act. 9.
Claims 13, 14, 24, 25, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as obvious over the combination of Coburn, Van Horck, and Adimatyam
(US 2010/0306811 Al; Dec. 2, 2010). Final Act. 10.
Claims 15 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious
over the combination of Coburn, Van Horck, and Aminian
(US 2010/0106730 Al; Apr. 29, 2010). Final Act. 12.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Coburn teaches or suggests "the
recently-played list stored on a management server, the management server
providing access to a plurality of service providers," as recited in claim 1?
3
Appeal2018-003200
Application 13/077,088
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Coburn's "controller" teaches or suggests
both the claimed "first second display" and the claimed "management
server." Final Act. 3--4.
Appellants argue that "the controlling devices 140 and 142 at most
arguably correspond to the claimed first second display," not the claimed
"management server." App. Br. 7. According to Appellants, "nothing in
Coburn shows or suggests that the controlling devices 140 and 142 function
as anything more than a conventional remote control unit" and they "do not
even function as a server of any type whatsoever." Id. Appellants argue,
"nowhere does [Coburn] discuss using controlling devices 140 and 142 to
[access] service providers that provide those streaming services." Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Claim 1 recites "the
recently-played list stored on a management server" and "the management
server providing access to a plurality of service providers." As the Examiner
explains (Ans. 4), Coburn discloses "a controller 240, which may correspond
to the controlling device 140 or 142 of FIG. 1." Coburn ,r 45. Coburn
further discloses "the controller 240 is used to manage ( e.g., add, delete,
move, save, or modify) a playlist." Id. Appellants fail to distinguish this
from the claimed "the recently-played list stored on a management server."
Coburn also discloses "the controller 240 is configured to facilitate a
selection of a plurality of audio sources available on the network" and "the
controller 240 is used to select an audio source for playback." Id.
Appellants fail to distinguish this from the claimed "the management server
providing access to a plurality of service providers."
4
Appeal2018-003200
Application 13/077,088
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and
claims 3, 4, 7-17, 19, 20, and 23-31, which Appellants argue are patentable
for similar reasons. See App. Br. 8; 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1, 3, 4, 7-17, 19, 20, and23-3I.
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.
§ 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5