Fabio Chiussi et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 18, 2022

2020006238 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2022)

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. 11/385,009 03/20/2006 Fabio M. Chiussi P41721US1 8810 27045 7590 03/18/2022 ERICSSON INC. 6300 LEGACY DRIVE M/S EVR 1-C-11 PLANO, TX 75024 EXAMINER KAUR, PAMIT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2416 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/18/2022 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): amber.rodgers@ericsson.com michelle.sanderson@ericsson.com pam.ewing@ericsson.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte FABIO M. CHIUSSI and ROSHAN M. RAO ________________ Appeal 2020-006238 Application 11/385,009 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MARC S. HOFF, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12-25, 27, 29-31, 33-52, 54-61, 63-69, 81-83, 85, 86, and 88-101.1 Claims 5, 7, 11, 26, 28, 32, 53, 62, 70-80, 84, and 87 have been canceled. Appeal Br. 26-49 (Claims App.).2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ). Appeal Br. 1. 2 Appellant filed an Appeal Brief on January 20, 2020, and a second Appeal Brief that contains only a corrected Claims Appendix on February 24, 2020. Citations herein are to the January 20, 2020 Appeal Brief unless otherwise noted. Appeal 2020-006238 Application 11/385,009 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s application relates to multicasting and unicasting multimedia services. Spec. 1:3-12. Claim 1 illustrates the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A method performed by a network entity, comprising: generating a program guide that provides a list of multimedia programs available for delivery to a user device, the program guide including a first portion comprising service- specific parameters common to all programs in the list and a second portion comprising program-specific parameters associated with at least one program in the list; sending, from the network entity to the user device, the second portion of the program guide without sending the first portion of the program guide; receiving, from the user device, a request for delivery of a multimedia program; identifying a transport mode associated with the multimedia program, the transport mode indicating whether the user device will receive the multimedia program over a unicast channel or a multicast channel of one or more bearer paths; and transmitting a communication that causes the user device to receive the multimedia program over a unicast channel or a multicast channel of the one or more bearer paths based at least in part on the identified transport mode. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 2, 6, 16, 21, 51, 54, 56, 60, 63, 65, 96, and 98-100 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon (US 2004/0196906 A1; Oct. 7, 2004) and Bijwaard (US 2007/0147411 A1; June 28, 2007). Final Act. 5-20. Appeal 2020-006238 Application 11/385,009 3 Claims 3, 4, 8-10, 12-15, 18, 22-25, 27, 29-31, 33-37, 39, 42-44, 49, 52, 55, 57, 58, 61, 64, 66, 67, and 97 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon, Bijwaard, and Lueng (US 2003/0172114 A1; Sept. 11, 2003). Final Act. 20-38. Claim 38 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon, Bijwaard, Lueng, and Kesavan (US 2004/0062200 A1; Apr. 1, 2004). Final Act. 38-39. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon, Bijwaard, and Kesavan. Final Act. 39-40. Claims 19, 20, 40, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon, Bijwaard, Lueng, and Reynolds (US 2004/0045030 A1; Mar. 4, 2004). Final Act. 40-43. Claim 45 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon, Bijwaard, Lueng, and Coblan (US 2005/0118946 A1; June 2, 2005). Final Act. 43-45. Claims 46-48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon, Bijwaard, Lueng, and Dekeyzer (EP 1583312 A1; Apr. 2, 2004). Final Act. 45-48. Claims 50, 59, 68, and 69 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon, Bijwaard, Lueng, Dekeyzer, Mutikainen (US 2005/0058125 A1; Mar. 17, 2005). Final Act. 48-53. Claims 81-83, 85, 86, 88-95, and 101 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon, Bijwaard, and Lueng. Final Act. 54-65. Appeal 2020-006238 Application 11/385,009 4 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Gordon teaches a “program guide including a first portion comprising service-specific parameters common to all programs in the list,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 5-6; Ans. 3-5. In particular, the Examiner finds Gordon teaches a program guide that contains program information, such as title, time, channel, and program duration. Ans. 3 (citing Gordon ¶ 59). The Examiner finds the program guide also displays a video advertisement that is targeted to the user based on the user’s geographic area. Id. The Examiner finds that because the video advertisement is targeted based on location, the video advertisement is a “service-specific parameter” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 3-4. Appellant argues the Examiner errs because Gordon’s video advertisement is not a service-specific parameter. Appeal Br. 10-12. Appellant argues the Specification describes examples of service-specific parameters and the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim term is unreasonable and inconsistent with the Specification. Id. at 11 (citing Spec. 21). Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. Claim 1 recites a program guide including a first portion comprising “service-specific parameters.” The Specification explains that network operators may define service-specific parameters of a multicast or unicast service deployed in a distribution network. Spec. 10:28-31. Examples of these service-specific parameters include “transport mode parameters, geographical area parameters, encryption mode parameters, quality of service parameters, network configuration parameters, security and access parameters, announcement parameters, and charging model parameters.” Spec. 11:3-6. Appeal 2020-006238 Application 11/385,009 5 The Specification also describes other types of parameters, such as program- specific parameters. In each instance, the Specification discusses parameters as values that define conditions of operation of the services within the network. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s interpretation of “service-specific parameter” to include a video advertisement that may be selected based on a user’s geographical area is unreasonable and inconsistent with the Specification. On the record before us, and for these reasons, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1.3 We also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 51 and 60, which recite commensurate subject matter, for the same reasons. Independent claims 81, 90, and 93 stand rejected as unpatentable over Gordon, Bijwaard, and Lueng. Final Act. 54-65. The Examiner does not find Lueng cures the above-identified deficiency. See id. We, therefore, do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 81, 90, and 93 for the same reasons. The dependent claims stand rejected as unpatentable over Gordon and Bijwaard and, in some cases, one or more additional references. Final Act. 5-65. The Examiner does not find that any of these additional references cure the above-identified deficiency. See id. Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of the dependent claims for the same reasons. 3 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. Appeal 2020-006238 Application 11/385,009 6 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 6, 16, 21, 51, 54, 56, 60, 63, 65, 96, 98- 100 103 Gordon, Bijwaard 1, 2, 6, 16, 21, 51, 54, 56, 60, 63, 65, 96, 98- 100 3, 4, 8-10, 12-15, 18, 22-25, 27, 29-31, 33- 37, 39, 42- 44, 49, 52, 55, 57, 58, 61, 64, 66, 67, 97 103 Gordon, Bijwaard, Lueng 3, 4, 8-10, 12-15, 18, 22-25, 27, 29-31, 33- 37, 39, 42- 44, 49, 52, 55, 57, 58, 61, 64, 66, 67, 97 38 103 Gordon, Bijwaard, Lueng, Kesavan 38 17 103 Gordon, Bijwaard, Kesavan 17 19, 20, 40, 41 103 Gordon, Bijwaard, Lueng, Reynolds 19, 20, 40, 41 45 103 Gordon, Bijwaard, Lueng, Coblan 45 46-48 103 Gordon, Bijwaard, Lueng, Dekeyzer 46-48 50, 59, 68, 69 103 Gordon, Bijwaard, Lueng, Dekeyzer, Mutikainen 50, 59, 68, 69 81-83, 85, 86, 88-95, 101 103 Gordon, Bijwaard, Lueng 81-83, 85, 86, 88-95, 101 Appeal 2020-006238 Application 11/385,009 7 Overall Outcome 1-4, 6, 8- 10, 12-25, 27, 29-31, 33-52, 54- 61, 63-69, 81-83, 85, 86, 88-101 REVERSED