`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`Remarks
`
`Reconsideration of this application is respectfully requested. Upon entry of the
`
`foregoing reply, claims 6—35 and 41—114 are pending in the application, with claims 6, 41, 79,
`
`and 93 being the independent claims.
`
`Amendments have been made to the claims and new claims 107—114 are added.
`
`Section 112 support for the amendments and new claims can be found throughout the
`
`application as filed, including paragraphs [0040], [0042], [0055], [0094], [0139], [0142],
`
`[0144], [0150], [0187], and [0345].
`
`Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`Claims 6, 17-19, 22, 57, 24-27, 41, 52-54, 59-62, 79-87, 88, and 93-102
`
`Claims 6, 17-19, 22, 57, 24-27, 41, 52-54, 59-62, 79-87, 88, and 93-102 are rejected
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being allegedly anticipated by Eyal (U.S. Patent No. 6,389,467).
`
`Applicants respectfully traverse the rejection.
`
`Without acquiescing to the propriety of the rejection, Applicants amend claim 6 to
`
`clarify distinguishing features not believed to be disclosed, taught, or suggested by Eyal.
`
`Eyal discusses a method for playing back media from a network including receiving a
`
`search criteria from a network enabled device and accessing a database comprising a plurality
`
`of network addresses, each address associated with one or more classes of information and
`
`accessing a media network resource. Eyal further describes selecting at least one address in
`
`the database using the search criteria and signaling the selected address to the network
`
`enabled device.
`
`(Eyal, 1:50—62). Examples of search criterias include titles, artist names, data
`
`types, user preferential rating, quality, and duration. The network server selects at least one
`
`address from the database based on the search criteria.
`
`(Eyal, 11:48—54).
`
`Eyal fails to disclose, teach, or suggest “receiving, by a management system via a
`
`communication network and from a communication device, a request associated with a user
`
`of the communication device to have media streamed to the communication device, the media
`
`divided into a plurality of segments.” In addition, Eyal does not disclose, teach, or suggest
`
`“using at least one rule associated with the media to generate at least one identification of one
`
`or more of the plurality of segments of the media.” Because Eyal fails to disclose, teach, or
`
`50828454.1
`
`19
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`suggest media divided into a plurality of segments, it cannot disclose, teach, or suggest
`
`generating at least one identification of one or more of the plurality of segments of the media.
`
`Furthermore, Eyal does not disclose, teach, or suggest “transmitting, from the
`
`management system to the communication device, (i) the at least one identification of the one
`
`or more segments of the media and (ii) information for use by the communication device
`
`identifying how to communicate with each of the plurality of resources to cause the one or
`
`more segments of the media to be streamed to the communication device.” The Office
`
`refers to column 2, lines 2—6 of Eyal regarding these features. However, Eyal only describes
`
`identifying two addresses from the database and automatically playing back the media
`
`network resources of each of the signaled addresses. Eyal demonstrates that these addresses
`
`refer to different media. Eyal notes that “the media play—back component continuously plays
`
`back media by (i) accessing a first site on the network and playing back media from the first
`
`site, (ii) then automatically accessing a second site and playing back media from the second
`
`site. The media sites may be provided by play—lists which that are made accessible to the
`
`media playback component.” (Eyal, 27:47—51). Eyal does not indicate that the playlist is sent
`
`to the user terminal. Claim 6 distinguishes over Eyal because Eyal does not disclose
`
`“transmitting. . .to the communication device. . .information for use by the communication
`
`device identifying how to communicate with each of the plurality of resources to cause the
`
`one or more segments of the media to be streamed to the communication device.”
`
`Therefore, Applicants respectfully submit that independent claim 1 distinguishes over
`
`Eyal. Reconsideration of claim 6 and withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
`
`Independent claim 41 recites “receive, via a communication network and from a
`
`communication device, a request associated with a user of the communication device to have
`
`media streamed to the communication device, the media divided into a plurality of segments,”
`
`“use at least one rule associated with the media to generate at least one identification of one or
`
`more of the plurality of segments of the media,” and “transmit to the communication device
`
`(i) the at least one identification of the one or more segments of the media and (ii) information
`
`for use by the communication device identifying how to communicate with each of the
`
`plurality of resources to cause the one or more segments of the media to be streamed to the
`
`communication device.” Thus, independent claim 41 recites similarly to independent claim 6
`
`508284541
`
`20
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`and distinguishes over Eyal for at least the reasons above and further in view of its respective
`
`features.
`
`Independent claim 79 recites “receiving, by a management system via a
`
`communication network and from a communication device, a request associated with a user
`
`of the communication device to have media streamed to the communication device, the media
`
`divided into a plurality of segments” and “transmitting, from the management system to the
`
`communication device, (i) at least one identification of the one or more segments of the media
`
`and (ii) information for use by the communication device identifying how to communicate
`
`with each of the plurality of resources to cause the one or more segments of the media to be
`
`streamed to the communication device.” Thus, independent claim 79 recites similarly to
`
`independent claim 6 and distinguishes over Eyal for at least the reasons above and further in
`
`view of its respective features.
`
`Independent claim 93 recites “receive, via a communication network and from a
`
`communication device, a request associated with a user of the communication device to have
`
`media streamed to the communication device, the media divided into a plurality of segments”
`
`and “transmit to the communication device (i) at least one identification of the one or more
`
`segments of the media and (ii) information for use by the communication device identifying
`
`how to communicate with each of the plurality of resources to cause the one or more
`
`segments of the media to be streamed to the communication device.” Thus, independent
`
`claim 93 recites similarly to independent claim 6 and distinguishes over Eyal for at least the
`
`reasons above and further in view of its respective features.
`
`The dependent claims depend upon the independent claims 6, 41, 79, and 93 and
`
`distinguish over Eyal for at least the reasons above and further in view of their respective
`
`features. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully submit that claims 6, 17—19, 22, 57, 24—27, 41,
`
`52-54, 59-62, 79—87, 88, and 93—102 distinguish over Eyal for at least the reasons provided
`
`above. Reconsideration of the claims and withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully
`
`requested.
`
`50828454.1
`
`21
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims 7-14, 16, 42-49, and 51
`
`Claims 7—14, 16, 42—49, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`allegedly unpatentable over Eyal in view of Herz (U.S. Patent No. 5,758,257). Applicants
`
`respectfully traverse the rejection.
`
`Regarding the independent claims, Herz does not solve the deficiencies of Eyal,
`
`described above. Herz discusses a system and method for determining from an object profile
`
`data of customers which data or video programming is most desired by each customer so that
`
`customers may receive data or video pro gramming customized to their objective preferences.
`
`(Herz, 1:10—17). Herz further describes a customer profile system including content profiles
`
`and customer preferences.
`
`(Herz, 9:30—35). Thus, Applicants respectfully submit that the
`
`independent claims distinguish over Eyal and Herz. Dependent claims 7—14, 16, 42—49, and
`
`51 depend upon the independent claims and distinguish over the applied references for at least
`
`the reasons above and further in view of their respective features.
`
`Additionally, dependent claim 9 independently distinguishes over Eyal and Herz.
`
`Claim 9 recites “selecting the other media comprises selecting at least one of an advertisement
`
`and a selected one of a plurality of media clips.” Regarding claim 9, the Office acknowledges
`
`that Eyal does not teach claim 9. However, the Office refers to column 47, line 21 to column
`
`48, line 22 of Herz. Nothing in this entire column of Herz in combination with Eyal
`
`discloses, teaches, or suggests “selecting the other media comprises selecting at least one of
`
`an advertisement and a selected one of a plurality of media clips.” Rather, Herz describes
`
`“[t]he agreement matrix can be also be used to select infomercials or other advertisements that
`
`the customer is most likely to watch and respond to by making purchases.” (Herz, 47:63—66).
`
`It is unclear what, if anything, in Herz allegedly teaches the claimed features. Applicants
`
`submit that the Office has failed to establish a primafacie case of obviousness for at least
`
`these reasons. Claim 45 recites similarly to claim 9 and also independently distinguishes over
`
`Eyal and Herz. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request reconsideration of claims 7—14,
`
`16, 42—49, and 51 and withdrawal of the rejection.
`
`50828454.]
`
`22
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`Claims 15 and 50
`
`Claims 15 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being allegedly
`
`unpatentable over Eyal in view of Angles (U.S. Patent No. 5,933,811). Applicants
`
`respectfully traverse the rejection.
`
`Regarding the independent claims, Angles does not solve the deficiencies of Eyal,
`
`described above. Angles discusses allowing an advertisement provider to monitor the number
`
`of advertisements viewed by consumers associated with a particular content provider so that
`
`content providers can receive advertising revenue based on the number of consumers who
`
`access their websites.
`
`(Angles, 4:17—26). Thus, Applicants respectfully submit that the
`
`independent claims distinguish over Eyal and Angles. Dependent claims 15 and 50 depend
`
`upon the independent claims and distinguish over the applied references for at least the
`
`reasons above and further in view of their respective features.
`
`Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request reconsideration of claims 15 and 50 and
`
`withdrawal of the rejection.
`
`Claims 20, 21, 55, and 56
`
`Claims 20, 21, 55, and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being allegedly
`
`unpatentable over Eyal in view of Farber (U.S. Patent No. 6,654,807). Applicants
`
`respectfully traverse the rejection.
`
`Regarding the independent claims, Farber does not solve the deficiencies of Eyal,
`
`described above. Farber discusses a mechanism at a server that maintains and keeps track of a
`
`number of partially replicated servers or repeaters. Each repeater replicates some or all of the
`
`information available on the server.
`
`(Farber, 4:18—26). Thus, Applicants respectfully submit
`
`that the independent claims distinguish over Eyal and Farber. Dependent claims 20, 21, 55 ,
`
`and 56 depend upon the independent claims and distinguish over the applied references for at
`
`least the reasons above and further in view of their respective features.
`
`Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request reconsideration of claims 20, 21, 55, and
`
`56 and withdrawal of the rejection.
`
`50828454.]
`
`23
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`Claims 23, 28-35, 58, 63-78, 89-92, and 103-106
`
`Claims 23, 28—35, 58, 63—78, 89—92, and 103—106 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) as being allegedly unpatentable over Eyal in view of Wiser (U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,385,596). Applicants respectfully traverse the rejection.
`
`Regarding the independent claims, Wiser does not solve the deficiencies of Eyal,
`
`described above. Wiser discloses a single delivery server 118 streams a preview of audio data
`
`for an audio file that is requested by a media player 116. See, for example, Figure 3 and col.
`
`8, lines 27—41 identifying a single delivery server address in a media voucher sent to the
`
`media player. While other delivery servers may exist, they do not stream the preview of the
`
`audio file for the particular request. Moreover, when an audio file is purchased, the purchased
`
`audio file is downloaded, not streamed. Wiser also does not disclose transmitting an
`
`identification of a plurality of segments of the media as claimed. Again, as depicted in Figure
`
`3 and col. 8, lines 27—41, a single media ID is transmitted in the media voucher. As a result,
`
`Applicants respectfully submit that the independent claims distinguish over Eyal and Wiser.
`
`Dependent claims 23, 28—35, 58, 63—78, 89—92, and 103—106 depend upon the independent
`
`claims and distinguish over the applied references for at least the reasons above and further in
`
`view of their respective features.
`
`Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request reconsideration of claims 23, 28—35, 5 8,
`
`63-78, 89—92, and 103—106 and withdrawal of the rejection.
`
`Conclusion
`
`The dependent claims include all of the limitations of their respective base claim and,
`
`therefore, are patentable for at least the reasons the respective base claim is patentable.
`
`All reasons for patentability of the independent and dependent claims have not
`
`necessarily been discussed herein. No implication or construction should be made therefore.
`
`Applicant has no further remarks with regard to any references cited by the Examiner
`
`and made of record, whether or not acted upon by the Examiner in the action’s rejections,
`
`even if specifically identified in the action or any other paper or written or verbal
`
`communication. No implication or construction should be drawn about any review of the
`
`same by Applicant or Applicant’s attorney.
`
`50828454.]
`
`24
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 081009—406855
`Filed Via EFS-Web
`
`Based on the foregoing, it is submitted that the Applicant’s invention as defined by the
`
`claims is patentable over the references of record. Issuance of a Notice of Allowance is
`
`solicited.
`
`Applicant’s attorney welcomes the opportunity to discuss the case with the Examiner
`
`in the event that there are any questions or comments regarding the response or the
`
`application.
`
`This is intended to be a complete response to the Examiner’s Office action mailed on
`
`January 27, 2015.
`
`The Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any fees that may be required or
`
`credit any overpayment to Deposit Account 50—1662, referencing the docket number above.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`POLS INELLI PC
`
`
`/John R. Bednarz /
`
`John R. Bednarz, Reg. No. 62,168
`900 W. 48‘h Place, Suite 900
`Kansas City, MO 64112
`Tel: (816) 360—4382
`
`Fax: (816) 753—1536
`
`Attorney for Applicants
`
`50828454.1
`
`25
`
`