CenturyLink Intellectual Property LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 29, 2021

2020000682 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2021)

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. 15/840,982 12/13/2017 Michael D. Sprenger CLC-174/US 6730 174132 7590 03/29/2021 Lumen Patent Firm CenturyLink Intellectual Property LLC 438 Cambridge Ave., Suite 225 Palo Alto, CA 94306 EXAMINER TELAN, MICHAEL R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2426 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2021 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 MICHAEL D. SPRENGER, ZUBIN INGAH, AAMIR HUSSAIN, FERNANDO PRIETO-OCHOA, and ASGHAR HUSSAIN ________________ Appeal 2020-000682 Application 15/840,982 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LARRY J. HUME, and JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection of claims 1–21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. INVENTION The disclosed and claimed invention relates to implementing conflict resolution for electronic program guides. Spec. ¶ 5. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, CenturyLink Intellectual Property LLC is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-000682 Application 15/840,982 2 1. A method, comprising: receiving, with a computing system, a plurality of metadata associated with a first video content of a plurality of video content, the plurality of metadata including a plurality of first metadata, each first metadata of the plurality of first metadata originating from a respective metadata source among a plurality of metadata sources, each of the first metadata corresponding to information regarding the first video content among the plurality of video content; compiling, with the computing system, the plurality of first metadata from the plurality of metadata sources; determining, with the computing system, whether at least one first metadata of the plurality of first metadata is inconsistent with other first metadata of the plurality of first metadata; based on a determination that at least one first metadata of the plurality of first metadata is inconsistent with other first metadata of the plurality of first metadata, determining, with the computing system, that a first set of the plurality of first metadata more accurately corresponds to the first video content, wherein the first set of the plurality of first metadata includes one or more first metadata members that are consistent, wherein the first set includes more first metadata members than any other sets of the plurality of first metadata with one or more first metadata members that are consistent; modifying, with the computing system, one or more of the plurality of first metadata to be consistent with the first set of the plurality of first metadata; generating, with the computing system, an electronic program guide (“EPG”) that presents the information regarding the first video content based on the modified one or more of the plurality of first metadata; and displaying, with the computing system, the EPG on a display device. Appeal Br. 33 (Claims App.). Appeal 2020-000682 Application 15/840,982 3 REJECTIONS2 The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 6, 7, 14–17,3 and 19–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wilder (US 2003/0051246 A1; published Mar. 13, 2003) and Israel (US 2005/0182792 A1; published Aug. 18, 2005). Final Act. 7–17. The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wilder, Israel, and Alsina (US 2014/0282755 A1; published Sept. 18, 2014). Final Act. 17–18. The Examiner rejects claims 8–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wilder, Israel, and Marsh (US 2003/0195863 A1; published Oct. 16, 2003). Final Act. 18–22. The Examiner rejects claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wilder, Israel, Marsh, and Bergstrom (US 2008/0059631 A1; published Mar. 6, 2008). Final Act. 22–23. The Examiner rejects claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wilder, Israel, and Wilcox (US 2012/0089999 A1; published Apr. 12, 2012). Final Act. 24–27. 2 According to the Pre-Brief Appeal Conference Decision mailed on May 8, 2019, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 was withdrawn. 3 Although the statement of rejection includes claims 12 and 13, we interpret this as a typographical error because: (1) the substantive rationale of the rejection does not include claims 12 and 13; and (2) the Examiner rejects claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wilder, Israel, and Wilcox. Final Act. 24–27. We, therefore, do not list claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wilder and Israel. Appeal 2020-000682 Application 15/840,982 4 ANALYSIS I. Does the Combination of Wilder and Israel Teach a First set of the Plurality of First Metadata? The Examiner finds Wilder teaches in situations where different program listings 40 contradict each other in regard to a data item, combining unit 108 determines a best data item by determining which data item is agreed upon by the majority of program listings, which the Examiner maps to the limitation: based on a determination that at least one first metadata of the plurality of first metadata is inconsistent with other first metadata of the plurality of first metadata, determining, with the computing system, that a first set of the plurality of first metadata more accurately corresponds to the first video content, wherein the first set of the plurality of first metadata includes one or more first metadata members that are consistent, wherein the first set includes more first metadata members than any other sets of the plurality of first metadata with one or more first metadata members that are consistent, as recited in claim 1 (and similarly recited in claims 14 and 20). Ans. 4–12 (citing Wilder ¶¶ 13, 40, 41); Final Act. 10–11 (citing Wilder ¶¶ 13, 40, 41). Moreover, the Examiner determines the Specification states that a set of metadata is designated as more accurately corresponding to video content when the set of metadata represents a majority over the remaining set of metadata. Ans. 7–8 (citing Spec. ¶ 52). Appellant argues Wilder merely teaches a comparison of data items contained with different EPGs such as a program synopsis or a listing of actors instead of the limitation “a determination that at least one first metadata of the plurality of first metadata is inconsistent with other first metadata of the plurality of first metadata” recited in claim 1. Appeal Appeal 2020-000682 Application 15/840,982 5 Br. 28–29; Reply Br. 4–5. Appellant argues Wilder merely teaches determining a best data item that a majority of program listings agree on rather than the limitation “more accurately corresponds to the first video content” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 29; Reply Br. 6. Appellant argues Wilder merely teaches determining a best data item that a majority of program listings agree on rather than the limitation a determination of a “first set . . . wherein the first set includes more first metadata members than any other sets of the plurality of first metadata” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 29; Reply Br. 6. We disagree with Appellant. As an initial matter, the Specification states that based on a determination that the corresponding one or more portions of the plurality of first metadata represent a majority over the identified one or more portions of the plurality of first metadata, the computing system 105 might designate the corresponding one or more portions of the plurality of first metadata as more accurately corresponding to the first video content Spec. ¶ 52 (cited at Ans. 7–8) (emphasis added). Wilder teaches in situations where different program listings 40 contradict each other (i.e., inconsistent with other first metadata) in regard to a data item, combining unit 108 determines a best data item by determining which data item is agreed upon by the majority of program listings (i.e., corresponds to the first video content), which teaches the limitation based on a determination that at least one first metadata of the plurality of first metadata is inconsistent with other first metadata of the plurality of first metadata, determining, with the computing system, that a first set of the plurality of first metadata more accurately corresponds to the first video content, as recited in claim 1 (and similarly recited in claims 14 and 20). Ans. 4–12 (citing Wilder ¶¶ 13, 40, 41); Final Act. 10–11 (citing Wilder ¶¶ 13, 40, 41). Appeal 2020-000682 Application 15/840,982 6 Wilder teaches in situations where different program listings 40 contradict each other in regard to a data item, combining unit 108 determines a best data item by determining which data item is agreed upon by the majority of program listings, which teaches the limitation “wherein the first set of the plurality of first metadata includes one or more first metadata members that are consistent” recited in claim 1 (and similarly recited in claims 14 and 20). Ans. 4–12 (citing Wilder ¶¶ 13, 40, 41); Final Act. 10– 11 (citing Wilder ¶¶ 13, 40, 41). Consistent with paragraph 52 of the Specification, Wilder teaches in situations where different program listings 40 contradict each other in regard to a data item, combining unit 108 determines a best data item by determining which data item is agreed upon by the majority (i.e., more first metadata members than any other sets of the plurality of first metadata) of program listings, which teaches the limitation “wherein the first set includes more first metadata members than any other sets of the plurality of first metadata with one or more first metadata members that are consistent” recited in claim 1 (and similarly recited in claims 14 and 20). Ans. 4–12 (citing Wilder ¶¶ 13, 40, 41; Spec. ¶ 52); Final Act. 10–11 (citing Wilder ¶¶ 13, 40, 41). Therefore, Appellant does not persuade us of Examiner error. II. Does Wilder and Israel Teach Modifying the Plurality of First Metadata To Be Consistent with the First set of the Plurality of First Metadata? The Examiner finds Israel teaches correcting inconsistencies using multiple sources and custom heuristics to correct errors and, in ambiguous cases, validation process 412 marks a questionable metadata field for human intervention and resolution, which the Examiner maps to the limitation Appeal 2020-000682 Application 15/840,982 7 “modifying the plurality of first metadata to be consistent with the first set of the plurality of first metadata” recited in claim 1. Ans. 13–14 (citing Israel ¶ 27, Figs. 1–2); Final Act. 12–13 (citing Israel ¶ 27, Figs 1–2). The Examiner concludes a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have combined Wilder and Israel to improve the accuracy of metadata, thereby enhancing user experience. Ans. 14; Final Act. 13. Appellant argues Israel merely teaches a validation process that uses custom heuristics to correct errors rather than the limitation “modifying the plurality of first metadata to be consistent with the first set of the plurality of first metadata” recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 30 (citing Israel ¶ 27). Appellant argues the combination of Wilder and Israel is the result of impermissible hindsight. Appeal Br. 30. Appellant argues Israel merely teaches metadata sets refer to sets of information elements that are pre- arranged and obtained from other metadata sets, but fails to teach the limitation determination of a first data set that “includes more first metadata members than any other sets of the plurality of first metadata” recited in claim 1. Id. at 30–31 (citing Israel ¶¶ 45–47). We disagree with Appellant. Israel teaches correcting (i.e., modifying) inconsistencies using multiple sources and custom heuristics to correct errors (i.e., to be consistent) and, in ambiguous cases, validation process 412 marks a questionable metadata field for human intervention and resolution, which teaches the limitation “modifying the plurality of first metadata to be consistent with the first set of the plurality of first metadata” recited in claim 1. Ans. 13–14 (citing Israel ¶ 27, Figs. 1–2); Final Act. 12–13 (citing Israel ¶ 27, Figs 1–2). Appeal 2020-000682 Application 15/840,982 8 We disagree with Appellant’s impermissible hindsight argument. Appeal Br. 30. Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence that combining the respective teachings of the references (as concluded by the Examiner — Final Act. 13; Ans. 14) would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,” or that such a combination would have “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Nor has Appellant provided any objective indicia of non-obviousness, which, as our reviewing court explains, “operate[] as a beneficial check on hindsight.” Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese & Powder Sys., Inc., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013). We disagree with Appellant’s argument that Israel merely teaches metadata sets refer to sets of information elements that are pre-arranged and obtained from other metadata sets, but fails to teach the limitation directed to determination of a first data set that “includes more first metadata members than any other sets of the plurality of first metadata” recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 30–31 (citing Israel ¶¶ 45–47). One cannot show nonobviousness “by attacking references individually” where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). In this case, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Wilder and Israel to account for limitations of claim 1. Moreover, Wilder teaches determination of a first data set that “includes more first metadata members than any other sets of the plurality of first metadata” recited in claim 1. See supra § I. Appeal 2020-000682 Application 15/840,982 9 Appellant does not argue claims 2–21 separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 26–31. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of: (1) independent claims 1, 14, and 20; and (2) dependent claims 2–13, 15–19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). CONCLUSION Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 6, 7, 14–17, 19– 21 103 Wilder, Israel 1–4, 6, 7, 14–17, 19– 21 5, 18 103 Wilder, Israel, Alsina 5, 18 8–10 103 Wilder, Israel, Marsh 8–10 11 103 Wilder, Israel, Marsh, Bergstrom 11 12, 13 103 Wilder, Israel, Wilcox 12, 13 Overall Outcome 1–21 FINALITY AND RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED