Ex Parte Middleton

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 25, 2017

12836418 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/836,418 07/14/2010 Ted Middleton 0370-US-Ul 2155 83579 7590 05/30/2017 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC Attn: Patent Docketing 1025 Eldorado Blvd. Broomfield, CO 80021 EXAMINER TANG, KAREN C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2447 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/30/2017 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): patent, docketing @ leve!3. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TED MIDDLETON Appeal 2016-007850 Application 12/836,4181 Technology Center 2400 Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—7 and 10—19, which constitute all claims pending in the application. Claims 8 and 9 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Level 3 Communications, LLC. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-007850 Application 12/836,418 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Claimed Invention The claimed invention relates to an “extensible content delivery platform.” Abstract. Claims 1, 6, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows (with the disputed limitations emphasized): 1. A method of providing an extensible content delivery platform, the method comprising: identifying, by a computer system, receipt of a discrete event at a core engine of a content delivery network, the core engine including a structured object model having a plurality of objects instantiated and available to process a plurality of event types; selecting a rule based on the discrete event, the rule from a set of rules defining the plurality of event types; selecting a module to process the discrete event based on the selected rule and identity of a user requesting processing of the discrete event, wherein the selected module processes the discrete event using at least one of the plurality of objects of the core engine. App. Br. 16 (Claims App.). The Rejection on Appeal Claims 1—7 and 10—19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lewin et al. (US 2009/0150518 Al; June 11, 2009) (“Lewin”), Doyle et al. (US 2006/0235738 Al; Oct. 19, 2006) (“Doyle”), and Warila et al. (US 2008/0313282 Al; Dec. 18, 2008) (“Warila”). Final Act. 3—6. 2 Appeal 2016-007850 Application 12/836,418 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellant could have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41,37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer, and provide the following for highlighting and emphasis. Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches “selecting a rule based on the discrete event, the rule from a set of rules defining the plurality of event types,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6—7. Specifically, Appellant asserts the Examiner interprets Lewin’s teaching of “metadata” to “read on discrete event” as recited in claim 1 and Lewin’s teaching of a “processor” to read on “selecting a rule.” App. Br. 6. Appellant contends metadata cannot constitute a “discreet event” and “selecting a processor is not the same as selecting a rule, as recited in claim 1.” App. Br. 6—7. Appellant, however, has misconstrued the Examiner’s findings on the record before us, and we are not persuaded of error. The Examiner finds Lewin teaches the use of metadata corresponding to “a rule,” not a discreet event as Appellant argues. Ans. 7—8 (citing Lewin 1136, 54). For example, Lewin teaches “metadata may . . . state that any request ending with an .xml extension is processed with the XSLT processor.” Lewin 1 54. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that this is a rule. As the Examiner further finds, it is not the “processor” in Lewin that is the discreet event selecting a rule, but rather, the “discreet event” is the 3 Appeal 2016-007850 Application 12/836,418 “request” for content as taught in Lewin. Ans. 8; Lewin Fig. 3, H 36—37, 43. Appellant has not identified any error in this finding. Appellant also disputes a second limitation in claim 1, “selecting a module to process the discrete event based on the selected rule and identity of a user requesting processing of the discrete event, wherein the selected module processes the discreet event using at least one of the plurality of objects of the core engine.” App. Br. 7—9. Appellant’s arguments regarding the “discreet event” and “rule” are redundant to the arguments discussed above, and we are not persuaded of error for the same reasons. Appellant further argues the prior art lacks any teaching of “objects of the core engine,” “selecting a module,” and selection based on “identity of a user” as recited in the claim. We, however, agree with the Examiner’s findings on the record before us. The terms “module” (defined as a functional unit, Spec. H 17—18) and “core engine” (defined essentially as “code,” Spec. 1105) are not meaningfully limited by the Specification. Using the broadest reasonable interpretation of these terms, as we must, see In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004), we discern no error in the Examiner’s finding of the disputed elements taught in Lewin and (redundantly) Doyle. As the Examiner further finds, Lewin teaches delivery of content based on “personalization” (i.e., the identity of user),2 where the “module” is a particular processor selected based upon the rules (metadata) 2 The Examiner’s additional citation of Doyle for this element, Final Act. 3, appears redundant with the teachings of Lewin, but in any event we discern no error in the Examiner’s finding that Doyle teaches processing the discreet event based on, among other things, identity of the “user.” Id.', see also Doyle 1138, 41. 4 Appeal 2016-007850 Application 12/836,418 regarding format of content delivery. Ans. 9-10; see also Lewin H 35, 44, 48. The processor processes a request for content using “objects” in the core engine (code managing an object cache). Ans. 9; Lewin 147. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Appellant argues the remaining independent claims (claims 6 and 16) recite similar limitations and are patentable “for the [same] reasons” as claim 1. App. Br. 14. The dependent claims are not argued separately. For the foregoing reasons, we discern no error in the Examiner’s rejection of any of these remaining claims. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1—7 and 10-19 as unpatentable over Lewin, Doyle, and Warila. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—7 and 10—19. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 5