Ex Parte Spurgat et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 17, 2016

13614990 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/614,990 09/13/2012 Jeffrey Jonathan Spurgat 107193 7590 10/19/2016 Keller Jolley Preece/Facebook 1010 North 500 East Suite 210 North Salt Lake, UT 84054 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. 19487.195.1.2 7152 EXAMINER OBAID,FATEHM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3627 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/19/2016 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): docketing@kjpip.com gjolley@kjpip.com tkusitor@kjpip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JEFFREY JONATHAN SPURGAT, STEPHEN CHRISTOPHER GLADWIN, and HOYET HARRISON ANDREWS III Appeal2014--004819 Application 13/614,990 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. PETTING, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges. PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 Jeffrey Jonathan Spurgat, Stephen Christopher Gladwin, and Hoyet Harrison Andrews III (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 of a final rejection of claims 1-31, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed November 25, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed February 27, 2014), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed December 27, 2013), and Final Action ("Final Act.," mailed June 25, 2013). Appeal2014-004819 Application 13/614,990 The Appellants invented an audio gateway device that is adapted to be used in a network of one or more digital audio playback devices which provides a gateway to the Internet for such digital audio playback devices and provides additional functionality such as synchronizing the digital audio content and playlists between the digital audio playback devices. Specification para. 2. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some paragraphing added). 1. A method comprising: [ 1] maintaining, by at least one server device, a record of a plurality of digital content devices associated with a user, wherein the plurality of digital content devices comprises a first digital content device and a second digital content device; [2] receiving, and from the first digital content device, information associated with a presentation of digital content by the first digital content device, wherein the information associated with the presentation of the digital content by the first digital content device comprises a current position of the presentation of the digital content by the first digital content device; 2 Appeal2014-004819 Application 13/614,990 [3] sending the current position to the second digital content device to enable a continued presentation of the digital content by the second digital content device beginning from the current position. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Qureshey US 2002/0002039 Al Jan.3,2002 Claims 1-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Qureshey. ISSUES The issues of obviousness tum primarily on whether the art describes receiving a current position for media play in one device and continuing presentation from that position in another device. FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Facts Related to the Prior Art Qureshey 01. Qureshey is directed to management and distribution of audio files over a computer network such as the Internet. Qureshey para. 3. 3 Appeal2014-004819 Application 13/614,990 02. Qureshey Fig. 6B shows the conceptual relationship between the site 602 and other Web sites that supply streaming audio information, such as a site 630, a site 631, and a site 632. The Internet provides the ability to transfer data between any two of the sites 602, 630-632. The user connects, through the ISP 232, to the site 602. The site 602 provides links to the sites 630-632 through the programming lists provided by the site 602. If the user selects a streaming audio program from one of the sites 630- 632, then the site 602 provides the necessary link to the selected site. In some embodiments, the site 602 provides the link information to the intelligent radio 100, and the intelligent radio 100 makes a "direct" connection to the selected site. In other embodiments, the site 602 links to the selected site, receives the streaming audio data, reformats the data if desired, and then sends the streaming audio data to the intelligent radio 100. Qureshey para. 111. 03. Qureshey describes the user accessing the server site IP AN (Internet Personal Audio Network) software 1433 through a network connection to the server site IP AN 1104 and from the server site IP AN software 1433 the user can assign playlists to different devices such as the network-enabled audio device 1510, the network-enabled audio device 1520, or the client PC 1508. The user composes the playlists from the server site IP AN software 1433, but typically only stores the title of the song and the URL from which the song came. The playlists stored throughout the IP AN 1100 are also stored in the server site IP AN 4 Appeal2014-004819 Application 13/614,990 1433. The user then has a master list of where all playlists are located. When the device 1510 connects to the server site IP AN 1104, a playlist is assigned to that device 1510. Within the playlist, the URL's indicate the location from which the audio files associated with the song titles in the playlist can be downloaded. The network-enabled audio device 1510 then proceeds to download the song from the given site specified by the URL to the disk space 1512 on the device 1510. If the site at the URL is not working, the server site IP AN software 1433 will upload the playlist from the disk space 1522 of another device 1520 the next time the second device 1520 connects to the network. The next time the original device 1510 calls in, it will download the play list from the server site 1104. Qureshey para. 151. 04. Qureshey Fig. 18H shows, when the CD player is being played, menu buttons 1821-1825 that change context to correspond to icons 1841-1844. The icons 1841-1845 show, respectively, a previous track icon 1841 corresponding to a previous track function 1892, a pause icon corresponding 1842 to a pause function 1894, a next track icon 1843 corresponding to a next track function 1896, and a stop icon 1844 corresponding to a stop play function 1898. Qureshey para. 172. 05. Qureshey Figs. 20A-20F illustrate the use of the action button 1210 on the network-enabled audio devices 1200 or 1300. The menu buttons 1821-1825 represent the functions that can be performed on the given audio source before the action button 1210 5 Appeal2014-004819 Application 13/614,990 is pressed. For an 1\!IP3 file, for example, the menu buttons 1821-1825 correspond to a "pause" function, a "next" function, a "previous" function, an "add favorites" function, and a "stop" function. Qureshey para. 180. ANALYSIS We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the art applied fails to describe limitations [2] and [3] of claim 1. App. Br. 8-9. The Examiner finds that Qureshey does not describe the receiving and sending of a current position. The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill would nevertheless have known to send and receive the current position between devices for ease and convenience and to pause in one device and continue in another device. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner cites no evidence to support this finding. As to ease and convenience, there are an infinite number of ways to provide this, many not yet invented. That they result in ease and convenience does not make their manner of implementation obvious. As to pausing one device and continuing in another, that is what the Appellants disclose as their invention. The question for the Examiner is how and why one of ordinary skill would have considered doing that based on the prior art. Again, saying it is convenient only characterizes the benefit; it does not explain how one would have known to do so to begin with. 6 Appeal2014-004819 Application 13/614,990 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 1-31under35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Qureshey is improper. DECISION The rejection of claims 1-31 is reversed. REVERSED 7