CenturyLink Intellectual Property LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 16, 2022

2021001805 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 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. 16/387,176 04/17/2019 Jonathan J. Vermes 1523-US-U1 9981 83809 7590 03/16/2022 CenturyLink Intellectual Property LLC Patent Docketing 1025 Eldorado Blvd. Broomfield, CO 80021 EXAMINER SHELEHEDA, JAMES R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2424 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/16/2022 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): patent.docketing@lumen.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JONATHAN J. VERMES ____________ Appeal 2021-001805 Application 16/387,176 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20. See Claims App. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2012). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as CenturyLink Intellectual Property, LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-001805 Application 16/387,176 2 The present invention relates generally to implementing over the top (“OTT”) service implementation coupled with over the air (“OTA”) tuning. See Spec. ¶ 4. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is representative: 1. A method, comprising: receiving, with an integrated media presentation device, one or more over the top (“OTT”) service signals; receiving, with the integrated media presentation device, information associated with each OTT media content received in the one or more OTT service signals; receiving, with the integrated media presentation device, one or more over the air (“OTA”) service signals; receiving, with the integrated media presentation device, location information associated with location of the integrated media presentation device; receiving, with the integrated media presentation device, information associated with each OTA media content received in the one or more OTA service signals, wherein the information associated with each OTA media content received in the one or more OTA service signals is based on the received location information; compiling, with the integrated media presentation device, the received information associated with each OTT media content received in the one or more OTT service signals and the received information associated with each OTA media content received in the one or more OTA service signals; generating, with the integrated media presentation device, an integrated electronic program guide (“EPG”) that integrates the compiled information associated with each OTT media content received in the one or more OTT service signals and information associated with each OTA media content received in the one or more OTA service signals; displaying, with the integrated media presentation device and on a display device, the generated integrated EPG that presents the compiled information associated with each OTT media content received in the one or more OTT service signals and information Appeal 2021-001805 Application 16/387,176 3 associated with each OT A media content received in the one or more OTA service signals; in response to receiving a first user selection selecting a first OTT media content in the one or more OTT service signals, automatically selecting, by the integrated media presentation device, a first input source corresponding to the first user selection; and in response to receiving a second user selection selecting a first OTA media content in the one or more OTA service signals, automatically selecting, by the integrated media presentation device, a second input source corresponding to the second user selection, wherein the display device switches from display of the first OTT media content to display of the first OTA media content seamlessly upon automatic selection of the second input source. REFERENCES The references relied upon by the Examiner are: Name Reference Date Throckmorton US 2005/0138663 A1 June 23, 2005 Domegan US 2005/0283799 A1 Dec. 22, 2005 Sirpal US 2015/0156548 A1 June 4, 2015 Barnett US 2018/0124438 A1 May 3, 2018 REJECTIONS R1. Claims 1, 2, 5, 9-12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sirpal, Domegan, and Barnett. Final Act. 3-17. R2. Claims 3, 4, 6-8, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sirpal, Domegan, Barnett, and Throckmorton. Final Act. 17-22. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Appeal 2021-001805 Application 16/387,176 4 ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “in response to receiving a first user selection selecting a first OTT media content . . . automatically selecting . . . a first input source corresponding to the first user selection.” See claim 1. Firstly, regarding the aforementioned claimed limitation, Appellant contends that “[t]here is no disclosure in Barnett regarding the automatic selection of input sources based on user selection from the [social programming guide] SPG” (Appeal Br. 9), because in Barnett “a user can see all of their available content without being ‘required to switch between multiple input sources.’” Id. at 10. Appellant contends that “Barnett implies that the user will still have to switch between these input sources when consuming their content, but that they are free to view available content without having to do so” (id.), thus, “Barnett fails to disclose or suggest automatic switching of input sources based on user selection, as recited in the present claims.” Id. We disagree with Appellant. We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions set forth in the Answer. Our discussions here will be limited to the following points of emphasis. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that “Barnett makes repeated [statements] regarding displaying a selected program without a user needing to change or even know the source of the program.” Ans. 3. For example, Barnett discloses: FIG. 31 illustrates a social programming guide (SPG) 3110 which may be displayed on mobile device 840 or TV 830. In general, SPG 3110 provides an easy and convenient way for user 101 to view and select available content to display on TV 830. . . . SPG 3110 aggregates content from multiple sources (e.g., OTT providers 403, MSOs 402, on demand programming, DVRs, etc.) into a convenient Appeal 2021-001805 Application 16/387,176 5 list of content according to the user’s interests. The user is not required to know where the content is being sourced from (e.g., from a STB or a DVR) or what channel is associated with the content. Instead, the user may simply tap an icon for an available program in SPG 3110 and the show will be displayed on TV 830. Barnett ¶ 289. In addition, channel switching mobile app 2910 may include a button or link for each show that a user may press or otherwise interact with to begin watching the show. Once pressed, mobile device 840 may send an indication of the interaction to social TV dongle 810 . . . . Social TV dongle 810 may subsequently send IR commands to content source 820 in order to, for example, tune content source 820 to the appropriate channel for the selected show. Barnett ¶ 281. Barnett also discloses that “users are not required to switch between multiple input sources.” Barnett ¶ 292. As noted by the Examiner, in Barnett “the displayed GUI includes a button to select a program which results in the device automatically sending IR commands to the content source to tune the appropriate program.” Ans. 3; see also Barnett ¶¶ 284-292. Stated differently, in Barnett the system automatically transmits a command to the source when a user selects one particular program from the list. Thus, we find unavailing Appellant’s aforementioned contentions that “[t]here is no disclosure in Barnett regarding the automatic selection of input sources based on user selection from the SPG” (Appeal Br. 9), given the disclosure in Barnett regarding the TV dongle automatically sending an IR command to the content source following a program selection. Secondly, Appellant contends that because “Barnett fails to disclose combining OTA content with OTT content, Barnett cannot also disclose Appeal 2021-001805 Application 16/387,176 6 automatic switching from OTT content to OTA content seamlessly.” Appeal Br. 10. We disagree with Appellant. Here, the Examiner relies on the combines teachings of Sirpal, Domegan, and Barnett to teach and/or suggest the claimed limitation the display switches from display of the first OTT media content to display of the first OTA media content seamlessly upon automatic selection of the second input source. See Final Act. 3-6. As noted above, the Examiner relies on Barnett to teach automatic selection of the source and seamlessly switching from one content to another. Further, the Examiner relies upon Domegan to teach “EPG information associated with over-the-air [(“OTA”)] content based on the received location information” (Final Act. 5), and Sirpal to teach an integrated EPG with OTT media and OTA media. See Final Act. 4. As noted above, Appellant argues that because Barnett fails to disclose combining OTA content with OTT content, Barnett cannot disclose automatic switching from OTT content to OTA content seamlessly. However, Appellant’s specific arguments are directed to Barnett, while the contested findings are based on the collective teachings of the references. For this reason and for reasons further explained immediately below, we do not see any reversible error. For instance, Appellant’s argument against Barnett separately from Sirpal and Domegan does not persuasively rebut the combination made by the Examiner. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425-26 (CCPA 1981). Appeal 2021-001805 Application 16/387,176 7 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appellant’s arguments regarding the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 11 and 20 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellant does not argue separate patentability for the dependent claims. See Appeal Br. 8-11. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2- 20. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 5, 9-12, 18-20 103 Sirpal, Domegan, Barnett 1, 2, 5, 9-12, 18-20 3, 4, 6-8, 13-17 103 Sirpal, Domegan, Barnett, Thockmorton 3, 4, 6-8, 13-17 Overall Outcome 1-20 No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED