Ex Parte Sue et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 30, 2014

11782554 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2014)

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. 11/782,554 07/24/2007 Ranny Q. Sue PD-207043 7767 20991 7590 10/01/2014 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION CA / LA1 / A109 2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245 EXAMINER ZHONG, JUN FEI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2426 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/01/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RANNY Q. SUE and XAVIER D. RILEY ____________ Appeal 2012-003115 Application 11/782,554 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JASON V. MORGAN, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-003115 Application 11/782,554 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1–17 and 34–42. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a content management system generating a first content list for the first content delivery network and generating a second content list for the second content delivery network. A content distribution system communicates with the content management system and the first content delivery network and the second content delivery network. The content distribution system transfers content to the first and second content delivery network from the content repository. Abstract. Independent claim 34, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 34. A communication system comprising: a first content delivery network for a first type of user device; a second content delivery network for a second type of user device different than the first content delivery network; a content repository communicating with the first content delivery network and the second content delivery network, said first content in a first format associated with the first network and a second content associated with the second network; Appeal 2012-003115 Application 11/782,554 3 a content management system generating a first content list for the first content delivery network and generating a second content list different than the first content list for the second content delivery network; a content distribution system communicating with the content management system and the first content delivery network and the second content delivery network, said content distribution system transferring content to the first and second content delivery network from the content repository, the content delivery network publishing the content according to a publication start time; said first content delivery network communicating the first content list to a first user device; and said second content delivery network communicating the second content list to a second user device. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1–9, 11, 14–15, 17, and 34–41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ellis (US 6,774,926 B1; Aug. 10, 2004) in view of Johnson (US Pub. 2005/0216952 A1; Sep. 29, 2005). 2. The Examiner rejected claims 10, 12–13, 16, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ellis in view of Johnson further in view of Katz (US 2007/0011709 A1; Jan. 11, 2007). ISSUE The issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Ellis and Johnson teaches the limitations of Appeal 2012-003115 Application 11/782,554 4 a content management system generating a first content list for the first content delivery network and generating a second content list different than the first content list for the second content delivery network; . . . said first content delivery network communicating the first content list to a first user device; and said second content delivery network communicating the second content list to a second user device. as recited in claim 34. ANALYSIS Claims 34–41 We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Rejection and the Answer and we add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellants argue that Johnson fails to teach a second content list (App. Br. 6–7). Appellants particularly argue that Johnson’s filtered listing is generated by the sink component 12 associated with the presentation device 14, and not server 20 (App. Br. 7). Appellants assert that this is different than what is required in claim 34, which is the content management system communicating the content to the first and second user devices (App. Br. 7). Appellants further argue that Johnson does not teach delivering the list through a content delivery network, let alone two different content delivery networks for delivering each of the different contest lists respectively (App. Br. 7). We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. At the outset we note the Examiner relied on Ellis, not Johnson, for the findings of two different content delivery networks delivering each of the different contest lists respectively. “[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references Appeal 2012-003115 Application 11/782,554 5 individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner relied on Ellis (Ans. 7) for teaching a first content delivery network (e.g., wireless) for a first type of user device (e.g., communication path 44 communicates with a cellular telephone 42; Ellis Fig. 1) and a second content delivery network (e.g., wired) for a second type of user device different than the first content delivery network (e.g., communication path 46 communicates with user equipment 34, 36; Ellis Fig. 1) (see also Ellis col. 2, l. 65–col. 3, ll. 17, 55–61 ). Our reviewing Court noted that the Specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis, and it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). We turn to Appellants’ Specification to construe the term “content management system” for generating a first and a second content list. Appellants pointed us to paragraph 30 of their Specification, which is silent as to the structure that constitutes “content management system” but describes the function of communicating lists either via network 132 or satellites 106, 108 (App. Br. 4). Appellants directed us to paragraphs 46 and 77 for the content distribution system transferring content to the first and second content delivery networks (App. Br. 4). Appellants’ paragraphs 46 and 77 describe again distribution of the content via different types of communication. Thus, the Examiner’s finding of Ellis teaching generating the content of schedules (i.e., content lists) (Ellis col. 5, ll. 6–5) and then distributing the content by different content delivery networks (i.e., wired or wireless) to different devices (i.e., television or cellular phone) (Ellis col. 4, l. 19-col. 5, Appeal 2012-003115 Application 11/782,554 6 l. 5) meets the disputed limitations. In particular, Ellis’s first content delivery network communicating the first content list to a first user device (e.g., distributing program schedule information from data storage facility 52 to a cellular telephone 42 via wireless path 44; Fig. 1) and a second content delivery network communicating the second content list to a second user device (e.g., distributing program schedule information from data storage facility 52 to user equipment 36 via wired path 46; Ellis Fig. 1) teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. See Ans. 8; Ellis col. 4, l. 19-col. 5, l. 15; col. 8, ll. 36–67. We also agree with the Examiner’s findings that because the lists go through different type of formatting for the different devices in Ellis, different content lists are created necessarily for a television versus a cellular telephone (see Ans. 15-16). We also agree with the Examiner’s reliance on Johnson for the explicit teaching of different listings being created based on the format of the data and the presentation device (Ans. 16; Johnson ¶ 73). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument regarding Johnson not communicating the content list via a network and processing of the listings at the device itself rather than at a server (App. Br. 7). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference …. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Accordingly, the Examiner correctly relied on Johnson’s teaching of creating different content listings based on the formatting and the type of device. Appeal 2012-003115 Application 11/782,554 7 Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claim 34 and for the same reasons the rejections of claims 35–41 for which no additional arguments of patentability were made (see App. Br. 8). Claims 1–9, 11, 14–15, and 17 Appellants assert that the limitations of claim 1 are similar to those of claim 34 and thus, the same arguments apply. Accordingly, we also affirm the rejections of claim 1 and the rejections of claims 2–9, 11, 14–15, and 17 for which no additional arguments of patentability were made. Claims 10, 12–13, 16, and 42 Appellants did not present any additional arguments with respect to claims 10, 12–13, 14–15, and 17 (App. Br. 9), and thus, we also affirm the rejections of these claims for the same reasons as stated above. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Ellis and Johnson teaches the limitations of a content management system generating a first content list for the first content delivery network and generating a second content list different than the first content list for the second content delivery network; . . . said first content delivery network communicating the first content list to a first user device; and said second content delivery network communicating the second content list to a second user device. as recited in claim 34. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–17 and 34–42 is affirmed. Appeal 2012-003115 Application 11/782,554 8 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 dw