CENTURYLINK INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 3, 2020

13631110 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2020)

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. 13/631,110 09/28/2012 Steven M. Casey CLC-165/US 7351 174132 7590 11/03/2020 Lumen Patent Firm CenturyLink Intellectual Property LLC 438 Cambridge Ave., Suite 225 Palo Alto, CA 94306 EXAMINER OCAK, ADIL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2426 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/03/2020 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): kathleen.mcinnish@centurylink.com ptomail@lumenpatent.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEVEN M. CASEY, FELIPE CASTRO, RONNIE S. DHALIWAL, and HONG HEE CHOI Appeal 2019-002581 Application 13/631,110 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN A. EVANS, LARRY J. HUME, and LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–4, 6–14, and 17–19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as CenturyLink Intellectual Property LLC. Appeal Brief 3, filed August 27, 2019 (Appeal Br.). Appeal 2019-002581 Application 13/631,110 2 BACKGROUND This patent application concerns “automatically generating multimedia channels for streaming and/or broadcasting, said channels being driven by social media, news events, and Internet searches, etc.” Specification ¶ 1, filed September 28, 2012 (Spec.). Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for compiling video content for presentation in dynamic automated content channels to a user, the method comprising: accessing, at a head-end of a telecommunications system, trend data from a trend database, wherein the trend data represents contemporary social media, Internet searches, or news events; generating, at the head-end, keywords based on the trend data; storing, at the head-end, the generated keywords in a keyword database; searching, at the head-end, at least one content catalog of at least one content library for video content that is relevant to the generated keywords; generating, at the head-end, a list of relevant video content based on the search of the at least one content catalog; generating, at the head-end, at least one dynamic automated on-demand channel for streaming the relevant video content, based on the list of relevant video content, wherein the head-end is configured to display a selection screen on the at least one dynamic automated on-demand channel from which the user is enabled to select a program of the relevant video content for streaming; generating, at the head-end, at least one dynamic automated broadcast channel that is tailored to the user, which comprises a consolidated broadcast channel, associated with the relevant video content based on the at least one content catalog, Appeal 2019-002581 Application 13/631,110 3 wherein the head-end is configured to generate, without user input, a programming schedule, which is tailored to the user, of the relevant video content based on predetermined criteria and to broadcast the relevant video content to the user on the consolidated broadcast channel based on the programming schedule generated without user input, wherein the relevant video content is associated with the trend data representing at least one of contemporary social media, Internet searches, or news events, wherein the relevant video content includes at least one of social media content or Internet content, wherein the relevant video content, associated with the trend data representing at least one of contemporary social media, Internet searches, or news events, is compiled into the consolidated broadcast channel that is tailored to the user based on the programming schedule tailored to the user and generated without user input, wherein the predetermined criteria include at least one criterion selected from the group consisting of relevance, user preference, popularity, length of video content, and broadcaster's program scheduling policies (the “generating, at the head-end, at least one dynamic automated broadcast channel” limitation); formatting, at the head-end, the program of relevant video content and the broadcast relevant video content for presentation on at least one user device, wherein the at least one user device includes at least one of a cable television system, an interactive television system, a standard television system, a gaming console, a mobile device, a personal computer, and a tablet computer; and providing, at the at least one user device and selectable by user input, user access to one or more of the at least one dynamic automated on-demand channel and the at least one dynamic automated broadcast channel, the dynamic automated on- demand channel presenting the program of relevant video content and the dynamic automated broadcast channel presenting the broadcast relevant video content. Appeal Br. 27–28. Appeal 2019-002581 Application 13/631,110 4 REJECTION Claims 35 U.S.C. § References 1–4, 6–14, 17–19 103(a) Jordan,2 Sinha,3 Gordon,4 Nyako5 DISCUSSION We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection and Appellant’s arguments, and Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. As consistent with the discussion below, we adopt the Examiner’s reasoning, findings, and conclusions on pages 2–25 of the Final Office Action mailed March 8, 2018 (Final Act.), and pages 3–12 of the Examiner’s Answer mailed December 13, 2018 (Ans.). We address Appellant’s arguments in turn. Appellant contends that the Examiner has not shown that the combination of Jordan, Sinha, Gordon, and Nyako teaches or suggests the “generating, at the head-end, at least one dynamic automated broadcast channel” limitation recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 20–24. Appellant focuses on Nyako and argues that Nyako does not teach or suggest the “video content” recited in this limitation, as Nyako allegedly aggregates only information about video content, not the video content itself. Reply Brief 6– 7, filed February 13, 2019 (Reply Br.). Relatedly, Appellant contends that Nyako does not teach or suggest consolidating video content into a broadcast channel as required by this limitation because Nyako’s “virtual channels are actually program guides with information about the content and the video 2 Jordan et al. (US 2011/0289534 A1; November 24, 2011). 3 Sinha (US 2012/0016948 A1; January 19, 2012). 4 Gordon et al. (US 2002/0077880 A1; June 20, 2002). 5 Nyako et al. (US 2007/0074245 A1; March 29, 2007). Appeal 2019-002581 Application 13/631,110 5 content itself does not actually appear on the virtual channel.” Appeal Br. 23. Finally, Appellant asserts that Nyako’s virtual channels are not the recited “broadcast channels” because Nyako “clearly distinguishes the virtual channels . . . from broadcast channels.” Appeal Br. 24. Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. The Examiner found that Jordan teaches the recited video content and broadcast channel. See, e.g., Ans. 4 (“It is also noted that the teaching of ‘broadcast channel’ is already taught in Jordan reference (paragraph 0032, figure 2) as indicated on page 5 of the final rejection.”), 9 (“In response, the Examiner first points out that it is the first reference (Jordon) in the rejection that teaches ‘video content.’”); see also Final Act. 4–6 (mapping Jordan to claim 1). Appellant has not expressly contested these findings; in fact, Appellant seems to concede that Jordan teaches video content. See Reply Br. 7 (arguing that “there is no indication that [Jordan’s] content (which may include video content) may be integrated into a consolidated broadcast channel as recited by pending claim 1”(emphasis added)). The Examiner found that Nyako discloses the concept of virtual television channels that contain programs and other content that satisfy user preferences. See, e.g., Final Act. 9–10 (citing Nyako ¶¶ 4, 22, 25, 33, Figs. 2, 4A, Abstract); see also Ans. 4 (making similar findings). Although Appellant contends that Nyako discloses only a program guide, one of skill in the art would understand Nyako to disclose both a program guide and the concept of virtual channels that consist of tailored content. See, e.g., Nyako ¶ 25 (“A virtual channel contains a listing of programs and other content that satisfy various preferences set by a user. Thus, the virtual channel contains programs and other content that the user would most likely want to access at Appeal 2019-002581 Application 13/631,110 6 a given time. The virtual channel may aggregate programs from multiple different channels (e.g., broadcast channels, video on demand (VoD), IPTV channels, and the like).” (emphasis added)). The Examiner concluded that the disputed limitation would have been obvious in light of the combined teachings of Jordan and Nyako, as well as the teachings of Sinha and Gordon. See, e.g., Final Act. 4–10. Appellant’s arguments against Nyako individually have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in this regard. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). (“[O]ne cannot show non- obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.”). As noted above, Appellant asserts that “there is no indication that [Jordan’s] content (which may include video content) may be integrated into a consolidated broadcast channel as recited by pending claim 1.” Reply Br. 7. We disagree. Jordan teaches that the disclosed invention “allows a host site to package and bulk deliver content information and content itself to user platforms, wherein the content information contains only the content listings and/or program guide for the channel line-up for which the user has indicated a use or preference.” Jordan ¶ 37 (emphasis added). Thus, contrary to Appellant’s argument, Jordan indicates that the disclosed “content (which may include video content) may be integrated into a consolidated broadcast channel.” In any event, “it is not necessary that the inventions of” Jordan and Nyako “be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Rather, the relevant questions is “whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed.Cir.1985) (en banc). That is the case here. Appeal 2019-002581 Application 13/631,110 7 Appellant also argues that Sinha does not teach or suggest that the recited video content is “associated with the trend data representing at least one of contemporary social media, Internet searches, or news events” as recited in the “generating, at the head-end, at least one dynamic automated broadcast channel” limitation. See Appeal Br. 25–26. Appellant does not dispute that Sinha discloses monitoring activity on a variety of internet sites to detect spikes in keyword usage (that is, trends) but contends that Sinha does not teach associating the monitored activity with video content. See Appeal Br. 25. Appellant also contends that even if Sinha did teach associating this activity with video content, the “video content could not be integrated with Nyako because . . . Nyako does not disclose a consolidated broadcast channel comprising consolidated video content.” Appeal Br. 25. Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. The Examiner found that Jordan teaches the recited video content and concluded that the combination of Jordan’s and Sinah’s teachings would have made the disputed limitation obvious. See, e.g., Final Act. 4–7; Ans. 10–11. Appellant’s argument that Sinha alone does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation therefore has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. As for Appellant’s argument that Nyako does not teach or suggest the recited video content and broadcast channel, as discussed above, the Examiner found that Jordan discloses these elements. See, e.g., Ans. 4, 9; Final Act. 4–6. We thus see no merit in this argument. For at least the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Because Appellant does not present separate, persuasive arguments about claims 2–4, 6–14, and 17–19, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. Appeal 2019-002581 Application 13/631,110 8 CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 6–14, 17–19 103(a) Jordan, Sinha, Gordon, Nyako 1–4, 6–14, 17–19 No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED