Patent
`
`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
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket