ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 5, 2021

2020000714 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 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.
15/219,934 07/26/2016 David A. Kummer 066.0289C1 3283
70560 7590 05/05/2021
LKGLOBAL (Dish Technologies L.L.C.)
7010 E. COCHISE ROAD
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85253
EXAMINER
HUNNINGS, TRAVIS R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/05/2021 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):
dish@lkglobal.com
ipdept@dish.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DAVID A. KUMMER 1
____________________

Appeal 2020-000714
Application 15/219,934
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JASON J. CHUNG, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 12 and 14 through 20, claim 13 has been
canceled. We have jurisdiction 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(a). According to Appellant, Dish Technologies L.L.C. is the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-000714
Application 15/219,934

2
INVENTION
The invention relates generally to a method for identifying a user of
an electronic device by measuring the bioelectrical impedance of the user
and associating the measured value with information corresponding to the
user. Abstract. Claims 1 and 19 are reproduced below.
1. A method of identifying a user of an electronic device,
the method comprising:
measuring a bioelectrical impedance of the user;
generating a value based on the measured bioelectrical
impedance of the user; and
measuring a bioelectrical impedance of a current user of
a media content receiver as the electronic device;
generating a value based on the measured bioelectrical
impedance of the current user;
comparing the value associated with the current user with
the value associated with the user; and
replacing the value associated with the user with the
value associated with the current user when the value associated
with the current user indicates that the current user is the user.

19. An electronic device, comprising:
a memory;
a communication interface configured to receive values
based on measured bioelectrical impedances a user of the
electronic device, and to receive user commands for the
electronic device; and
control logic configured to:
identify a current user based on a measured
bioelectrical impedance from the communication
interface; and
in response to the identification, control the
operation of the electronic device based on peer group
Appeal 2020-000714
Application 15/219,934

3
information indicating other users with whom to
communicate and corresponding to the user in response
to user commands initiated by the current user.
EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 16 through
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tanida (US
2002/0179338 A1, pub. Dec. 5, 2002) and Adams (US 6,970,098 B1, iss.
Nov. 29, 2005). Final Act. 3–9.
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 4, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Tanida, Adams, and Drinan (US 2004/0019292
A1, pub. Jan. 29, 2004). Final Act. 10–11.
The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Tanida, Adams, and Baumgartner (US 2005/0160458 A1,
pub. July 21, 2005). Final Act. 12–13.
The Examiner rejected claims 19 and 20, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Matsuura (US 2010/0321151 A1, pub. Dec. 23,
2010), Adams, and Douglas (US 2006/0176149 A1, pub. Aug. 10, 2006).
Final Act. 13–16.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, the
Reply Brief, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to
Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 12 and 14 through 20

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed October 9,
2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Final Office Action mailed February 7, 2018 (“Final
Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 21, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2020-000714
Application 15/219,934

4
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 1 through 12 and 14 through 18
Appellant argues with respect to independent claim 1 that the
Examiner’s rejection is in error as there is no reason to combine the
teachings of Tanida and Adams. Appeal Br. 5–7. Appellant asserts that the
Examiner has not provided a reasoned articulation of why the skilled artisan
would combine the teachings of Tanida and Adams. Appeal Br. 6–7.
Further, Appellant asserts that Tanida uses the combination of weight and
biometric impedance to identify the user (with weight value being more
heavily weighted). Appeal Br. 7. Appellant asserts that the skilled artisan
would not combine the teachings because if they are combined the “user
would need to place the remote control on the ground, step on the remote
control to provide weight information, then retrieve the remote control from
the ground before using the remote control. Such a system would in many
cases be less convenient than simply walking to the remotely controlled
device and manually providing inputs.” Appeal Br. 7.
The Examiner, in rejecting claim 1 finds that Tanida teaches the
limitations directed to measuring bioelectrical impedance of a user to
identify the user and Adams to teach a controller for a home entertainment
system which makes use of biometric data to identify a user. Final Act. 3–4;
Answer 4–5. The Examiner finds that the skilled artisan would combine the
references as “[b]ioelectrical impedance is one of many types of biometric
features.” Final Act. 5. Additionally, in response to Appellant’s arguments
in the Brief, the Examiner states:
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art,
that the system of Tanida et al. that uses biometric input to
identify a user may use one of many biometric features obtained
Appeal 2020-000714
Application 15/219,934

5
from a variety of biometric sensors for applications such as
identifying a user in a media content system. As noted in FOA
p. 5, extracted biometric features are used in association with
household electronics for user access and preference/profile
settings.
Ans. 5.
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection. We have reviewed the teachings of Tanida and
Adams and concur with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that the
skilled artisan would combine the teachings. Appellant’s arguments focus
on Tanida’s teaching of identifying the user by measuring both weight and
bioelectrical impedance, however we do not consider Tanida’s teachings to
be so limited. Rather, Tanida teaches, in paragraph 56 that the weight and or
bioelectrical impedance may be used to identify the user and in paragraph
105 discusses an embodiment where the bioelectric impedance alone is used
to identify the user. Paragraph 105 also identifies that the bioelectric
impedance may be measured at the users hand. Thus, Appellant’s argument,
on page 7 of the Brief, that the combination would require the user to stand
on the device to measure weight and bioelectric impedance, is not well
taken. Rather, we consider the use of Tanida’s teaching of bioelectric
impedance to identify a user in place of the biometric measuring element of
Adams’ controller for a home entertainment system is merely a substitution
of one known biometric measuring method for another. “The combination
of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious
when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Accordingly, we concur with the
Examiner’s conclusion that the skilled artisan would combine the teachings
of Tanida and Adams, and are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
Appeal 2020-000714
Application 15/219,934

6
rejection of claim 1 by the Appellant’s arguments.
Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims
2 through 12 and 14 through 18 are in error for the same reason as claim 1.
Appeal Br. 7. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2
through 12 and 14 through 18 for the same reasons as claim 1.

Claims 19 and 20
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 is in error as
the combination of Matsuura, Adams, and Douglas do not teach the
limitation directed to “control the operation of the electronic device based on
peer group information indicating other users with whom to communicate.”
Appeal Br. 8–9. Appellant argues the Examiner has erroneously equated
“who is accessing the system” in Adams with the claimed peer group.
Appeal Br. 8. Appellant argues that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in a
decision in the parent application (Appeal 2014-001516 mailed 2/16/16)
agreed that “the rejection must include a description of how the portion of
Adams indicates other users with whom to communicate.” Appeal Br. 8.
Further, Appellant asserts the skilled artisan reading the Specification would
understand that “the peer group information requires some actual
information related to other users or receivers to be positively associated
with a particular user.” Appeal Br. 9 (citing Spec. ¶ 50). Given this
interpretation, Appellant asserts that Adams does not suggest such peer
group information. Appeal Br. 9.
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments on pages 5 and 6 of
the Answer. The Examiner identifies that there is nothing in the prior
decision that has bearing on the current rejection of claim 19. Ans. 6.
Appeal 2020-000714
Application 15/219,934

7
Further, the Examiner states:
in response to Appellants argument the examiner’s
interpretation of peer group is unreasonably broad, examiner
would point to a definition of the phrase “peer group” as “a
social group composed of individuals of approximately the
same age.” Therefore, it would not have been unreasonable for
one of ordinary skill in the art to consider the classification of
users based on age as a classification into “peer groups” as
claimed in the application. The limitations appellant is
attempting to read into the claims from the specification are too
specific to overcome the broad language of “peer group”
currently used in the claim.

Ans. 6. The Examiner finds that Adams’ teaching of two groups of
authorized users, adults and children meets the claimed peer group. Ans. 5
(citing Figs. 1, 2, 5 and col. 13, l. 47– col. 14, l. 24).3
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 19. At the outset, we note that our Decision in
Appeal 2014-001516 did not involve a rejection in which Adams was
applied as prior art, and as such Appellant’s arguments which rely upon the
prior decision and Adams are a non-sequitur. Claim 19 recites “control the
operation of the electronic device based on peer group information
indicating other users with whom to communicate.” Thus, the claim recites
that the electronic devices is controlled based upon information in the peer
group and that the peer group identifies who the other users with whom to
communicate. Adams teaches a controls feature, where if a user is identified
as being above a certain age, the media device allows the user to access the
certain pages and content. Adams (col. 14, ll. 5–15). Even if we apply

3 We note that page 5 of the Answer contains a typo identifying column 14
line 47 instead of column 13 line 47.
Appeal 2020-000714
Application 15/219,934

8
Appellant’s proffered interpretation of the term peer group, as requiring
“some actual information related to other users or receivers to be positively
associated with a particular user” we consider this disclosure of Adams to
teach the claimed peer group. Appeal Br. 9. As the biometric information is
used to determine information as to the person’s age and identifies them as
part of a group of people who the device is allowed to provide
communication (more pages and content). Thus, Appellant’s arguments
have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 and
claim 20 grouped with claim 19.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5, 6, 8,
10, 11, 12,
16–18
103 Tanida, Adams 1, 3, 5, 6,
8, 10, 11,
12, 16–18

2, 4, 14, 15 103 Tanida, Adams,
Drinan
2, 4, 14,
15

7, 9 103 Tanida, Adams,
Baumgartner
7, 9
19, 20 103 Matsuura, Adams,
Douglas
19, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–12, 14–
20

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