COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 10, 2022

2020002988 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 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. 13/630,210 09/28/2012 Jonathan Moore 007412.01649 4999 71867 7590 01/10/2022 BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD ATTORNEYS FOR CLIENT NUMBER 007412 1100 13th STREET, N.W. SUITE 1200 WASHINGTON, DC 20005-4051 EXAMINER WOLDEMARIAM, AYELE F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2447 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/10/2022 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): PTO-71867@bannerwitcoff.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte JONATHAN MOORE1 ________________ Appeal 2020-002988 Application 13/630,210 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 24-47, which constitute all claims pending in this application. Appeal Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Board conducts a limited de novo review of 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). We affirm in part. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 2, filed October 7, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”). Appeal 2020-002988 Application 13/630,210 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant describes the present invention as follows: A content network is presented where at least one of non- personalized data commonly applicable to a user base and personalized data is maintained. In an aspect, each element of the personalized data may be applicable to at least one, but less than all, of users within the user base. The non-personalized data may be stored across a plurality of servers included in a group, and the personalized data is stored across at least one, but less than all, of the plurality of computing devices included in the group. An update to data stored may be received and a determination made as to whether the update to data is to the non- personalized data or the personalized data. Then, one of the non- personalized data or the personalized data set stored in the server may be updated. Spec., Abstr. STATEMENT OF THE REJECTIONS Claims 24-39, 43, and 45-47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Harnevo (US 2013/0091243 Al; published Apr. 11, 2013), Berard (US 2011/0119058 Al; published May 19, 2011), and Abrink (US 2008/0039208 Al; published Feb. 14, 2008). Final Action 3-12, 15-18, mailed February 15, 2019 (“Final Act.”).2 Claims 40-42 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Harnevo and Berard. Final Act. 12-15. 2 Although all claims are listed as being rejected by the combination of Harnevo, Berard, and Abrink (Final Act. 3), claims 40-42, and 44 appear to be rejected over the combination of only Harnevo and Berard. Id. at 12-15. Appeal 2020-002988 Application 13/630,210 3 CLAIMS 24-39 Independent claim 24, reproduced below, illustrates the subject matter of the appealed claims 24-39: 24. A method comprising: receiving, via a network and from a user device of a first user, a request to access a video streaming content item; determining an application server in a first group of application servers, wherein the application servers in the first group each comprises memory storing: non-personalized metadata associated with the video streaming content item, and personalized data specific to the first user; performing, by the application server, an update comprising: a first update, of the non-personalized metadata stored in the memory of the application server, based on a first in-memory update process; and a second update, of the personalized data specific to the first user and stored in the memory of the application server, based on a second in-memory update process different from the first in-memory update process; processing, by the application server, the video streaming content item, the non-personalized metadata stored in the memory of the application server, and the personalized data specific to the first user and stored in the memory of the application server, in order to create a first personalized video streaming content item customized for the first user; and outputting, via the network and to the user device of the first user, the first personalized video streaming content item. The Examiner’s Determinations and Appellant’s Contentions The Examiner finds that Harnevo discloses most of the limitations of independent claim 24, but Harnevo does not explicitly disclose processing, the application server, the video streaming content item, the non-personalized Appeal 2020-002988 Application 13/630,210 4 metadata, and the personalized data specific to the first user, in order to create a first personalized video streaming content item customized for the first user; and outputting, via the network and to the user device of the first user, the first personalized video streaming content item. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Berard teaches processing the personalized data in order to create a first personalized video streaming content item and then outputting, via the network and to the first user device, the first personalized video streaming content item. Final Act. 4 (citing Berard ¶¶ 53-54). And the Examiner determines, “it would have been obvious . . . to incorporate forming a single video personalized for intended recipient and displaying the personalized video to Harnevo because Harnevo teaches generating personalized video and Berard suggests forming a single video personalized for intended recipient and displaying the personalized video.” Id. (citing Harnevo ¶ 7; Berard ¶¶ 7, 53-54). The Examiner then finds, Harnevo does not explicitly disclose performing, an update comprising: a first update of the non-personalized metadata stored in the memory of the application server based on a first in- memory update process; and a second update of the personalized data specific to the first user stored in the memory of the application server, based on a second in-memory update process different from the first in-memory update process. Final Act. 5. The Examiner additionally finds that Abrink teaches performing an update comprising a first update of the non-personalized metadata and a second update of the personalized data in the manner claimed. Final Act. 5. Appeal 2020-002988 Application 13/630,210 5 The Examiner determines, it would have been obvious . . . to incorporate the update command comprising a the [sic] need enabling real-time update of content and the use of log-in information stored in a central database to send properly addressed push messages to game system clients that should be updated to Harnevo because Harnevo teaches generating personalized video and Abrink suggests enabling real-time update of content, and the use of log- in information stored in a central database to send properly addressed push messages to game system clients that should be updated. Final Act. 5 (citing Harnevo ¶ 7; Abrink ¶¶ 11, 45). The Examiner further reasons, “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize Abrink into Harnevo system in order to improve efficiency of generating personalized video of Harnevo system.” Id. Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in relying on Abrink for teaching that the application server performs two updates-a first update of non-personalized metadata and a second update of personalized metadata. Appeal Br. 6-7. According to Appellant, “Abrink relates to a single update stored in the back office DB 106 to client units 132, 134, 136, 138, 140, 142.” Id. at 7. Appellant more specifically argues, The push message feature described in paragraph [0011] of Abrink and the update command feature described in paragraph [0045] of Abrink are parts of a sequential message flow for the same update, and the push message and the update command are processed by two different databases before reaching an application server. Id. (emphasis omitted); see also id. at 9. The Examiner subsequently clarifies that the Examiner interprets Abrink’s game session data and configuration information as corresponding to the non-personalized metadata and interprets login information as Appeal 2020-002988 Application 13/630,210 6 corresponding to the personalized information. Examiner’s Answer 18, mailed Jan. 9, 2020 (“Ans.”) (citing Abrink ¶ 78). In its Reply Brief filed March 9, 2020 (“Reply Br.”), Appellant responds to the Examiner’s alternative reliance on paragraph 78 of Abrink, as newly set forth in the Examiner’s Answer. Reply Br. 3-4. More specifically, Appellant argues, inter alia, though the information that is being updated includes configuration information and login information, there is no discussion in paragraph [0078] or anywhere in Abrink of how such information is updated. Thus, there is no discussion in paragraph [0078] that a first update, of non-personalized metadata stored in the memory of the application server 112 or 118 is “based on a first in-memory update process,” and there is no teaching in Abrink of a second update of personalized data specific to the first user that is “based on a second in-memory update process different from the first in-memory update process[,]” as called for in claim 24. There is no discussion of any sort as to how an update process is performed for metadata or any other type of data in Abrink. Id. at 3-4 (emphasis omitted). Analysis We understand the Examiner’s change from the initial position, as set forth in the Final Action, to the latter position, as set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, to be an indication that the Examiner has abandoned the initial position. Accordingly, we only address the latter rationale, as set forth in the Examiner’s Answer. With respect to this latter basis of the rejection, we find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. The Examiner determines that Abrink teaches various pieces of information that can be interpreted as personalized and non-personalized data. See Ans. 18-19. But the Examiner does not Appeal 2020-002988 Application 13/630,210 7 sufficiently explain what the processes are for updating these various pieces of information, much less sufficiently explain why the two update processes are different from each other. Id. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 24. We, likewise, reverse the rejection of claims 25-39, which either depend from claim 24 or otherwise include similar limitations. CLAIMS 40-44 Independent claim 40, reproduced below, illustrates the subject matter of the appealed claims 40-44: 40. A method comprising: updating, in memory of each computing device in a cluster of computing devices and based on a first in-memory update process, non-personalized metadata associated with a content item, wherein the non-personalized metadata is uncorrelated to any user account; updating, in memory of each computing device in a first group of computing devices and based on a second in-memory update process, first personalized data associated with the content item, wherein the first personalized data comprises first configuration data to configure a user-specific presentation of the content item for a first user, wherein the second in-memory update process is different from the first in-memory update process, and wherein the first group of computing devices is a subset of, and is less than all of, the cluster of computing devices; updating, in memory of each computing device in a second group of computing devices and based on a third in-memory update process, second personalized data associated with the content item, wherein the second personalized data comprises second configuration data to configure a user-specific presentation of the content item for a second user, the second configuration data being different from the first configuration Appeal 2020-002988 Application 13/630,210 8 data, and wherein the second group of computing devices is a subset of, and is less than all of, the cluster of computing devices; receiving, from a user device accessed by the first user, a request to access the content item; determining, from the first group of computing devices and based on determining that the user device is accessed by the first user, a first computing device that has stored, in memory, the non-personalized metadata and the first personalized data associated with the content item; processing, by the first computing device and based on the request, the content item, the first personalized data stored in the memory of the first computing device, and the non-personalized metadata stored in the memory of the first computing device, to create a first personalized content item customized for the first user; and sending, to the user device accessed by the first user, the first personalized content item comprising the user-specific presentation of the content item for the first user. The Examiner’s Determinations and Appellant’s Contentions Even though the heading of the obviousness rejection states that all of claims 24-47 are rejected over the combination of Harnevo, Berard, and Abrink (Final Act. 3), the body of the rejection of independent claim 40 only addresses the teachings of Harnevo and Berard. Id. at 12-14. The rejection does not rely on Abrink. Id. The Examiner, instead, cites to Harnevo for teaching the three updating steps. Id. at 12-13 (citing Harnevo ¶ 27); see also id. at 2-3 (citing Harnevo ¶¶ 61-63). Appellant points out that the Examiner acknowledges in relation to claim 24 that Harnevo does not disclose two different update processes. Appeal Br. 12 (citing Final Act. 5). Appellant also argues that the cited paragraphs of Harnevo do not teach or suggest two different update processes. Id. at 10-12. Appeal 2020-002988 Application 13/630,210 9 Analysis Appellant’s arguments are persuasive. Harnevo relates to “a method of obtaining parameters of a digital video to be provided to users of a network.” Harnevo, Abstr. Paragraph 27 of Harnevo discusses how a server 16 and cloud computing system 18 may be adapted for storing, routing, and communicating data within a network 10 and other networks to which the server and cloud computing system may be connected. Harnevo ¶ 27. “[P]aragraphs [0061]-[0063] of Harnevo refer to partial rendering of personalized videos utilizing computer resources within the computing cloud (such as element 18 described in paragraph [0027]).” Appeal Br. 11. The Examiner does not sufficiently establish that either of these cited passages sets forth two different in-memory update processes. Final Act. 12-14. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 40. We, likewise, reverse the rejection of claims 41, 42, and 44, which ultimately depend from claim 40. Claim 43 also ultimately depends from claim 40. But unlike dependent claims 41, 42, and 44, the Examiner additionally relies on Abrink in formulating the obviousness rejection. Final Act. 15. More specifically, the Examiner relies on Abrink for teaching claim 43’s additional language regarding the step of dividing the personalized data set into a plurality of personalized data. Id. The Examiner does not rely on Abrink for teaching the two distinct updating processes, as recited in independent claim 40. Accordingly, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 43 for the reasons set forth in relation to claim 40. Appeal 2020-002988 Application 13/630,210 10 CLAIMS 45-47 Independent claim 45, reproduced below, illustrates the subject matter of the appealed claims 45-47: 45. A method comprising: maintaining, in memory of each computing device in a cluster of computing devices, non-personalized metadata associated with a content item, wherein the non-personalized metadata is uncorrelated to any user account; maintaining, based on a consistent hashing: in memory of each computing device in a first group of computing devices, first personalized data specific to a first user and associated with the content item, wherein the first group of computing devices is a subset of, and is less than all of, the cluster of computing devices, and in memory of each computing device in a second group of computing devices, second personalized data specific to a second user and associated with the content item, wherein the second group of computing devices is a subset of, and is less than all of, the cluster of computing devices; receiving, from a user device accessed by the first user, a request to access the content item; determining, based on the content item and the request, the non-personalized metadata and the first personalized data stored in memory of a first computing device of the first group; processing, by the first computing device of the first group, the content item, the first personalized data stored in the memory of the first computing device, and the non-personalized metadata stored in the memory of the first computing device, to create a first personalized content item customized for the first user; sending, to the user device accessed by the first user, the first personalized content item customized for the first user; Appeal 2020-002988 Application 13/630,210 11 updating, by the first computing device of the first group and in the memory of the first computing device, the first personalized data; and coordinating with at least one second computing device, in a subset that is less than all of the second group of computing devices, to update the first personalized data. The Examiner’s Determinations and Appellant’s Contentions Even though the heading of the obviousness rejection states that all of claims 24-47 are rejected over the combination of Harnevo, Berard, and Abrink (Final Act. 3), the body of the rejection of independent claim 45 only addresses the teachings of Harnevo and Berard. Id. at 15-18. The rejection does not rely on Abrink. Id. Furthermore, unlike the other independent claims, independent claim 45 does not set forth a requirement that the process include two different update processes. See Appeal Br. 22. The Examiner cites to Harnevo for teaching the claimed step of maintaining in memory of each computing device in a first group of computing devices, first personalized data specific to a first user and associated with the content item. Final Act. 15 (citing Harnevo ¶ 27); see also id. at 2-3 (citing Harnevo ¶¶ 61-63). Appellant argues, claim 45 recites “maintaining, based on a consistent hashing: in memory of each computing device in a first group of computing devices, first personalized data specific to a first user and associated with the content item, . . . and in memory of each computing device in a second group of computing devices, second personalized data specific to a second user and associated with the content item.” There is no disclosure in paragraphs [0061] to [0063] or elsewhere in Harnevo of Appeal 2020-002988 Application 13/630,210 12 maintaining personalized data specific to a user in multiple computing devices. Appeal Br. 12. The Examiner subsequently changes position to indicate that Abrink also is being relied upon: “Abrink teaches maintaining (storing) personalized data specific to a user in multiple computing devices (servers) (i.e. a plurality of servers storing address information of the clients). Ans. 19 (citing Abrink ¶ 44). Appellant responds to the Examiner’s new position by arguing, Paragraph [0044] is not referring to “personalized data specific to a user.” Instead, paragraph [0044] refers to “each server storing address information of the clients that it services.” This paragraph is referring to a network address (not a home address) of a client gaming terminal (not a person) (see, e.g., paragraph [0033] of Abrink). Reply Br. 6. Analysis Appellant does not provide sufficient evidence to support the assertion that it would be unreasonable to interpret a user’s network address as constituting “personalized data specific to a first user,” as claimed. Accordingly, we affirm the obviousness rejection of independent claim 45 and also of claims 46 and 47, which Appellant does not argue separately. Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 7. Appeal 2020-002988 Application 13/630,210 13 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: TIME PERIOD FOR 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 24-39, 43, 45-47 103 Harnevo, Berard, Abrink 45-47 24-39, 43 40-42, 44 103 Harnevo, Berard 40-42, 44 Overall Outcome 45-47 24-44