Ex Parte Peterson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 21, 2018

13054805 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/054,805 01/19/2011 22879 7590 12/26/2018 HP Inc. 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Eric Peterson 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. 82629261 9850 EXAMINER WIDHALM DE RODRIG, ANGELA MARIE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2452 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/26/2018 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): ipa.mail@hp.com barbl@hp.com yvonne.bailey@hp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ERIC PETERSON, PHILIP M. WALKER, and JAMES LOUIS LONG Appeal2018-005083 Application 13/054,805 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1-7, 9-18. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP. App. Br. 1. 2 Claim 8 has been previously canceled. Appeal2018-005083 Application 13/054,805 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' disclosure is directed to distributing multimedia files using a media server. See Abstract. Claim 6, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows: 6. A method of distributing multimedia files using a media server computer, comprising: receiving, by the media server computer, the multimedia files; responsive to the receiving of the multimedia files, creating, at the media server computer, a website to include the received multimedia files for distribution to a web client; responsive to the receiving of the multimedia files, updating, by the media server computer, a streaming content at the media server computer to include the received multimedia files for distribution to a streaming client; responding, by the media server computer, to a web request by sending, to the web client, the received multimedia files from the website at the media server computer; and responding, by the media server computer, to a streaming client request by streaming the received multimedia files from the streaming content at the media server computer to the streaming client, the streaming client request different from the web request. App. Br. (Claims Appendix ii). The Examiner's Rejections Claims 1---6 and 8-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Chaney (US 2008/0140719 Al; pub. June 12, 2008) and Marcus (US 8,145,704 B2; iss. Mar. 27, 2012). See Final Act. 3-8. Claims 7 and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Chaney, Marcus, and Neufeld (Server Based Flow 2 Appeal2018-005083 Application 13/054,805 Control in a Distributed Continuous Media Server, DEPT. OF COMP. SCI., UNIV. OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 1-5 (April 2, 1996)). See Final Act. 8-10. ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 6, the Examiner finds Chaney discloses all the recited elements of the claim except for "the streaming client request different from the web request," for which the Examiner relies on Marcus. See Final Act. 3-5. Appellants contend the Examiner's rejection is in error because Chaney does not disclose "responsive to the receiving of the multimedia files, creating, at the media server computer, a website." App. Br. 6-7. Appellants argue, in applying Chaney, the Examiner improperly relies on the disclosure of "creating a URL" in paragraphs 37-38 of Chaney as the recited website because the channel disclosed in Chaney is not the same as the recited website. App. Br. 6-7. Appellants specifically assert creating an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) channel in Chaney, as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, is not the same as creating a website. App. Br. 7. 3 In response, the Examiner explains that: However, Chaney disclosed creating channels using XML applications, (see [0074]: "An AJAX application provides a drag-and-drop interface for creating and manipulating channels"), the applications run on browsers (see [0074]- [0075]), and presenting content to users in interfaces using HTML (see [0074], [0076]). Chaney also disclosed using Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) applications (see [0075]- [0078]). Chaney explained "In a WAP application, each request causes a transaction that generates two separate results ... these two responses are blended together by the presentation server to form an Extensible HTML (XHTML) page that can be 3 We do not address Appellants' other contentions because this contention is dispositive of the issue on appeal. 3 Appeal2018-005083 Application 13/054,805 interpreted by a small browser" (see [0076]). In other words, a website is created. As such, examiner maintains that the prior art of record teaches creating a website at the media server computer. Ans. 11-12 (emphasis added). Appellants argue the Examiner's restated position and reliance on paragraphs 74--78 of Chaney in the Answer is still unresponsive to the argued point regarding "creating, at the media server computer, a website" recited in claim 6. Reply Br. 3--4. Additionally, Appellants address the Examiner's new citation to paragraph 74--78 of Chaney and argue: What the Examiner failed to appreciate is that the HTML mentioned in these passages is the HTML of the user interface of the presentation server 412. Thus, although the user interface may be in the form of a website according to an HTML, there is absolutely nothing in ,r,r [0074] and [0076] of Chaney that provides any indication that the UI according to the HTML is a website that includes received multimedia files for distribution to a web client, as claimed. Stated differently, the UI according to the HTML of the presentation server 412 of Chaney is used by a user to set up channels-however, there is absolutely no indication that the channels themselves are according to HTML. This is because Chaney specifically states that the presentation Uis are according to HTML, not the channels. Reply Br. 5---6. Appellants summarize that "[t]here is no evidence to support the Examiner's assertion that the XHTML page corresponds to a website that includes multimedia files for distribution to a web client." Reply Br. 6. Based on a review of Chaney, we are persuaded by Appellants' contention that the Examiner has not explained how "creating and manipulating channels" relate to or result in creating a website. See Ans. 12. Similarly, the Examiner's findings with respect to generating media 4 Appeal2018-005083 Application 13/054,805 programming in Marcus do not address the deficiencies pointed out by Appellants with respect to "creating ... a website." App. Br. 7. In other words, the Examiner has not explained how the teachings of Chaney with respect to creating channels using XML applications and presenting content to users in a drag-and-drop interface (see Ans. 12 (citing Chaney ,r,r 74--78)) relates to a website, created by the media server, that includes "the received multimedia files for distribution to a web client." Therefore, Appellants' arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner's position with respect to the rejection of independent claim 6 and independent claims 1 and 9, which recite similar limitations. We therefore do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 6, and 9, as well as claims 2-5, 7, and 10-18 dependent therefrom. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-7, 9-18. REVERSED 5