Comcast Cable Communications, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 2, 2022

2020006684 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 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. 15/261,834 09/09/2016 Lewis Richard Buchanan JR. 26141.0261U1 8016 16000 7590 02/02/2022 Comcast c/o Ballard Spahr LLP 999 Peachtree Street, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30309-4421 EXAMINER VU, NGOC K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2421 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2022 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): USpatentmail@ballardspahr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LEWIS RICHARD BUCHANAN JR., and JOSHUA KSHENSKY ARENSBERG Appeal 2020-006684 Application 15/261,834 Technology Center 2400 Before ERIC. B. CHEN, PHILLIP A. BENNETT, and SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges. RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20, all the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. Appeal Br. 5. Appeal 2020-006684 Application 15/261,834 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims relate to verifying that a content asset is present at a user level. Spec., Abstr. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (with relevant limitation(s) emphasized): 1. A method comprising: generating, based on a video output from a user device, a user interface; generating, based on one or more stored menu structures, a command file, wherein the command file comprises a plurality of commands for navigating the user interface; sending, to the user device, based on the command file and via a remote controller, one or more commands of the plurality of commands, wherein the one or more commands are associated with locating a content asset via the user interface; sending, to the user device, via the remote controller, an access command, wherein the access command causes the content asset to be output via the video output; determining, based on the content asset being output, that the content asset is verified as currently available; and sending, to a storage device, based on determining that the content asset is verified, verification data. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Name Reference Date Aldrey US 2009/0172757 A1 July 2, 2009 Jin US 2012/0023126 A1 Jan. 26, 2012 Motoyama US 2015/0220644 A1 Aug. 6, 2015 Appeal 2020-006684 Application 15/261,834 3 REJECTIONS The Examiner makes the following rejections: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1-14, 16-20 103 Aldrey, Jin 15 103 Aldrey, Jin, Motoyama ANALYSIS Appellant contends that the combination of Aldrey and Jin does not teach or suggest the following limitations of claim 1: generating, based on one or more stored menu structures, a command file, wherein the command file comprises a plurality of commands for navigating the user interface; sending, to the user device, based on the command file and via a remote controller, one or more commands of the plurality of commands, wherein the one or more commands are associated with locating a content asset via the user interface. Appeal Br. 9-11 (emphasis added). Appellant contends that “[t]he ‘commands’ of Aldrey . . . are dynamically entered by the user to configure a set-top-box,” and “[t]here is no mention of generating a command file.” Id. at 10 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds that Aldrey discloses the above limitations. Final Act. 5. In the Final Action, the Examiner finds that Aldrey discloses “generating set of commands such as search/locate, record . . . etc., based on one or more stored parameters or configuration data.” Final Act. 5. In the Answer, the Examiner finds that the “control commands generated via the remote application for controlling/configuring one or more devices are delivered to the respective one or more devices.” Ans. 4. Nowhere does the Examiner explain how Aldrey teaches or suggests a command file; nor do we see a command file taught or otherwise suggested Appeal 2020-006684 Application 15/261,834 4 in Aldrey. See id. Instead, Aldrey describes “control commands”-not a file-that “affect configuration data relating to such parameters as parental controls, available channel information,” and so forth. Aldrey ¶ 20. We do not see where Aldrey teaches that these commands are generated “based on one or more stored parameters or configuration data,” as asserted in the Final Action. Final Act. 5. Rather, in Aldrey, “users . . . convey control commands” that “affect configuration data.” Aldrey ¶ 20 (emphasis added). We therefore agree with Appellant that Aldrey’s commands “are dynamically entered by the user to configure a set-top-box” and that there is “no mention of generating a command file” as claimed. Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner has not relied on any of the other cited references to teach this element. Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claim 1 and similar claims 9 and 20 and their dependent claims. We do not reach Appellant’s further allegations of error because we find the issue discussed above to be dispositive of the rejection of all the pending claims. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-14, 16- 20 103 Aldrey, Jin 1-14, 16-20 15 103 Aldrey, Jin, Motoyama 15 Overall Outcome 1-20 REVERSED