Ex Parte McCoy et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 16, 2019

13077298 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/077,298 03/31/2011 Charles McCoy
51518 7590 01/18/2019
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.
201003461.02 5317
EXAMINER
DASGUPTA, SHOURJO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/18/2019 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
Appeal2018-004525
Application 13/077 ,298
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection 1 of claims 1-24 under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to:
1 Herein, we refer to the Specification, filed Mar. 31, 2011 and the
documents on page 4 of this Decision.
2 The Real Parties in Interest are Sony Corporation and Sony Network
Entertainment. Appeal Brief 2.
Appeal2018-004525
Application 13/077 ,298
Systems and methods are provided that allow a user to
directly launch a service when launching a second display
application. The second display application may be a web
application or a native remote controller application. In this way,
the user is saved the trouble of having to search for the desired
service in a list of services, reducing the difficulties of the
systems disclosed above.
Specification, paragraph 3.
Illustrative Claim
1. A method of directly launching a service upon instantiation of a second
display application, comprising:
1. upon instantiation of a second display application, the second
display application controlling content playback on a content
playback device and providing access to one or more services,
establishing a session between a second display and a first
server, wherein the session is associated with a user account,
the user account having associated therewith an authentication
credential of at least one content playback device, the content
playback device being distinct from the second display and the
first server;
11. also upon the instantiation of the second display application,
retrieving, from storage on the second display, an identifier of a
service to be directly launched;
111. using the identifier to load the service to be directly launched;
and
2
Appeal2018-004525
Application 13/077 ,298
1v. launching the service within the second display application, the
service using the authentication credential of the at least one
content playback device for authentication.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 6-8 and 12-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Redford (US Patent 8,660,545 Bl; issued February
25, 2014) and Experton (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0031289
Al; published February 9, 2006). Final Action 2-8.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Redford, Experton and Sridhar (US Patent Application
Publication 2009/0183124 Al; published July 16, 2009). Final Action 8.
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Redford, Experton and Randa (US Patent Application
Publication 2009/0070475 Al; published March 12, 2009). Final Action 9.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Redford, Experton and Clark (US Patent 6,085,235;
issued July 4, 2000). Final Action 10.
Claims 17-19 and2I-24 stand rejected under35 U.S.C. §I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Redford, Experton and Malik (US Patent
Application Publication 2005/0228876 Al; published October 13, 2005).
Final Action 10-16.
Claims 2, 3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Redford, Experton, Vardi (US Patent Application
Publication 2008/0288618 Al; published November 20, 2008) and Kimura
(US Patent 5,737,579; issued April 7, 1998). Final Action 16-18.
3
Appeal2018-004525
Application 13/077 ,298
Claim 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Redford, Experton, Malik and Clarke. Final Action 18.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed September 26, 2017), the Answer (mailed
January 12, 2018) and the Final Action (mailed February 24, 2017) for the
respective details.
Appellants contend, "Redford is used for the majority of the claim
limitations. Experton is used for the teaching of automatic launch of
processes and applications." Appeal Brief 4.
Appellants' Figure 1 is reproduced below:
'0
.~ ............ ····~" ......... ' ... 3. ... ··~ ....... ···~-.. ··~-.......... ". ···~-............ ···~· ····~ • •
!D!RECT l.AUNCH SYSTEM ! • • • • • •
: Ml',NAGEMENT : ! r 25 SERVER ._... :
• • • •
: CONTENT
• PLAYBACK DEVICE
!r
l 12 • • •
14a .
SECOND DISPLAY
USER
INTER-
FACE
LP,UNCHED
SERVICE
23
r 1s
LOCAL
NETWORf(
14b
SECOND
DISPLAY
INTERNET
r14c
SECOND
DISPLAY
PROXY SERVER
.22 ____ _
CONTENT
SERVER/
SERVICE
PROVIDER(S)
24 ........................................
.
• • • • t
• • • • • • t
• • • • • • • i••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••N••••••••••••••••N••••••••••••••••N••••••••••••••••••••••J
4
Appeal2018-004525
Application 13/077 ,298
Figure 1 discloses, "[A] direct launch system 10 is shown including a
content playback device 12 coupled to a local network 16, which may be
wired, wireless, or a combination of both. Also coupled to the local network
16 are one or more second displays 14a-14c, an exemplary one of which is
termed second display 14i. A number of servers may be accessed by the
content playback device 12 and the second display 14i through the local
network 16 and the internet 25, including a management server 18, a proxy
server 22, and one or more content servers 24 corresponding to service
providers (only one is shown in Fig. 1)."
Specification ,r 41.
Redford's Figure 3A is reproduced below:
5
Appeal2018-004525
Application 13/077 ,298
FIG. 3A
\i',MiELESB
NET:hURK
Mes~,geM
(t,':3:'3.~d<:m
fmj'~leilttili
~·ltd~o}
BU!LDlNG
250
~
I: !
>':I-· :i::::.
COMPU:H-'!R
. SVSTEM
I
I ntemet-ermbl,5}d
TElEV!S!ON
!
!
!
!
!
!
~---· ::::::::::::=========_ ....... _ ..) ·c.:.':::::::::11::::::~
Figure 3A discloses a "computer system 250 responds to request 301 by
sending a signal 312 carrying the user-selected video 302 to an internet-
enabled television 303 (FIG. 3A) that is typically located in the vicinity of
handheld device 200 (e.g. co-located in a building 310, and in many
6
Appeal2018-004525
Application 13/077 ,298
embodiments co-located in a common room within building 310, such as a
family room of a typical home). Internet enabled television 303 in
accordance with the invention is any normal television that includes circuitry
to interface with the Internet, either internally within a housing, of which TV
screen 307 is a portion, or externally in a box that is normally placed on top
of the television housing. Also in accordance with the invention, television
303 executes predetermined software, referred to herein as authority-
compatible set-top interface software, to display video 302 that is retrieved
from the Internet in response to request 301."
Redford, columns 11-12; see Answer 4.
Claim 1 recites, "launching the service [29] within the second display
application [ 14a ], the service using the authentication credential of the at
least one content playback device [12] for authentication." (Appellants'
Figure 1 's element numbers added). Appellants argue Redford "does not
disclose the claim limitation of the second display application providing
access to services, where the service is directly launched by the second
display application, much less where the service uses the authentication
credential of the content playback device for authentication." Appeal Brief
5. Appellants further argue:
Appellant[ s] respectfully submit[ s] that the above points made
by the Office do not establish that the hand held device uses the
authentication credential of the "iTV." It is true that the hand held
device can initiate content playback, but such does not in any
way establish that the hand held device is doing so by way of the
authentication credential of the iTV, or that the hand held device
is communicating with service providers using the authentication
credential of the iTV.
Appeal Brief 9-10.
Appellants argue that the rejections of independent claims 1 and 17
should be withdrawn; however, we do not find Appellants' arguments
7
Appeal2018-004525
Application 13/077 ,298
persuasive of Examiner error. See Appeal Brief 10. Claim 1 only requires
that launching a service within the second device uses an authentication
credential of one content playback device. Redford discloses, "an authority
server in accordance with the invention receives the following information
from a handheld device: identifier of the handheld device, user's name and
password, TV-name and TV-password, credit card information, user profile
information." Redford, column 44.
Subsequently, Redford discloses launching a service selected from
EPG ((electronic program guide) 289) applications within a second display
(204)/handheld device (200) using authentication credentials of the content
playback device (TV (303)) such as user's name and password/ TV-name
and TV-password. See Redford, Figure 3A, column 44.
Appellants further argue that the "Examiner has not provided
sufficient reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine
the references." Appeal Brief 10. Appellants argue:
• Appellant respectfully disagrees that each reference contemplates
frameworks for automatic content request and playback.
• Experton relates to access of network addresses and applications, and
is not related to video playback in any substantial way. Thus, for at
least this reason, Appellant submits the references are in
nonanalogous arts and the rejections should thus be overturned.
• Redford itself never states any deficiency with an intuitiveness
of a launch feature, and there is no disclosure that the details of
Experton would ease or make more intuitive or straightforward the
system of Redford. In fact, it is even unclear how one would
incorporate the system of Experton into that of Redford, as the former
8
Appeal2018-004525
Application 13/077 ,298
simply allows an easier way to access addresses, and the latter simply
assumes that addresses exist and are accessible.
Appeal Brief 11.
Neither claim 1, nor claim 17 "contemplates frameworks for
automatic content request and playback" as argued by Appellants. We do
not find Appellants' argument that Redford and Experton are non-analogous
persuasive because both inventions pertain to displaying computer based
applications/content while employing authentication means. See Redford
columns 43--44; see also Experton, ,r,r 22, 33. We do not find Appellants'
bodily incorporation of the references argument persuasive. "The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the prirnary reference; nor is it that
the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." See In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner finds that Experton discloses a system for
automatically launching computer-executable processes wherein the
authentication credentials are stored on a device similar to the claimed
playback device. Final Action 5 (citing Experton ,r,r 16, 22 and 33; Figure 1,
element 122). The Specification discloses, "If the service is found in the list,
the service is automatically launched as described and a landing page of that
service is displayed." Specification ,r 5. However, as we stated above, we
do not find that independent claims 1 and 17 require the automatic launching
of computer executable processes or services.
9
Appeal2018-004525
Application 13/077 ,298
We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of independent
claims 1 and 17, as well as, the obviousness rejections of dependent claims
2-16 and 18-24 not argued separately. Appeal Brief 10.
DECISION
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 1-24 are
affirmed.
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 ). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
10