Ex Parte Punaganti Venkata et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 25, 2014

10456944 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MURALI KRISHNA PUNAGANTI VENKATA and INDRAJIT CHAUDHURI ____________________ Appeal 2011-007735 Application 10/456,944 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and PETER P. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges. Per Curiam. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-007735 Application 10/456,944 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-53. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 5 has been cancelled. We AFFIRM. Introduction According to Appellants, the claims are directed to method and apparatus to represent and use rights for content/media adaptation/transformation. Exemplary Claim Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: receiving signals in one or more modules of a network proxy configured to be arranged in a mobile network between a mobile terminal and a content provider for providing content, the signals containing the content and information to specify digital rights for adaption of the content associated with the content and issued by the owner or provider along with the content; determining in the one or more modules an adaptation policy that is based at least partly on the digital rights for adaption of the content associated with the content and issued by the owner or provider along with the content and transforming the content into adapted content based at least partly on the adaptation policy; and providing from the one or more modules a signal containing the adapted content. Appeal 2011-007735 Application 10/456,944 3 REFERENCES Safadi Pessi US 2003/0126086 A1 US 2004/0083291 A1 July 3, 2003 Apr. 29, 2004 REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-4 and 6-53 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Safadi and Pessi (Ans. 3-8). ISSUE 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1-4 and 6-53 Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Safadi and Pessi because the combination of Safadi and Pessi does not teach the recited “determining” step as set forth in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claims 16, 32, and 53 (App. Br. 8-12). Specifically, Appellants contend Pessi does not teach determining an adaptation policy based at least partly on the digital rights (App. Br. 8-11). Appellants further contend that Safadi does not teach the “determining an adaptation policy that is based at least partly on digital rights” because Safadi is merely converted into native DRM scheme. According to Appellants, Safadi’s technique can result in content being converted in a way that may distort the content inconsistent with an owner’s or provider’s wants (App. Br. 11-12). Thus, according to Appellants, Safadi teaches away from the claimed invention (App. Br. 12). Thus, the issues presented by these arguments are: Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Safadi and Pessi teaches or suggests Appeal 2011-007735 Application 10/456,944 4 determining in one or more modules an adaptation policy that is based at least partly on the digital rights for adaption of the content associated with the content and issued by the owner or provider along with the content and transforming the content into adapted content based at least partly on the adaptation policy as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claims 16, 32, and 53? Issue 2: Has the Examiner improperly combined the teachings of Safadi and Pessi? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. Our discussion here will be limited to the following points of emphasis. Appellants are arguing the references individually while the Examiner is relying on the combination of references to conclude the invention as recited is obvious. Appellants have not persuaded us modifying Pessi’s technique of determining an adaptation policy that is based on the Capabilities and user’s Preferences Information (CPI) to be based at least partly on “digital rights” would have been uniquely challenging or beyond the skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Accordingly, we determine combining Pessi’s technique of determining an adaptation policy associated with the content and transforming the content into adapted content based on the adaptation policy into Safadi’s digital rights management system would Appeal 2011-007735 Application 10/456,944 5 have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan in light of the teachings of Pessi and Safadi. Appellants’ additional argument that Safadi “teaches away” from Pessi is similarly not persuasive. A reference teaches away when a skilled artisan, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path taken by Appellants. However, Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us Safadi teaches away from the present invention or from Pessi. Appellants argue, for the first time in the Reply Brief, the combination does not teach “specify digital rights for adaption of the content associated with the content and issued by the owner or provider along with the content” (Reply Br. 5-8). However, Appellants have not presented any reason why these arguments were not earlier presented. Furthermore, even in light of Appellants’ arguments, we determine Appellants are again arguing the references individually. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Safadi and Pessi teaches or suggests the limitations as recited in independent claims 1, 16, 32, and 53 and dependent claims 2-4, 6-15, 17- 31, and 33-52, not separately argued. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-4 and 5-63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Safadi and Pessi. Appeal 2011-007735 Application 10/456,944 6 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 and 5-63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Safadi and Pessi is affirmed.1 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)(iv). AFFIRMED ke 1 Should there be further prosecution, the Examiner’s attention is drawn to claim 7 which currently depends from cancelled claim 5.