Ex Parte Karaoguz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 24, 2017

10675458 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 2017)

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.
10/675,458 09/30/2003 Jeyhan Karaoguz BP2824 5610
51472 7590 11/28/2017
GARLICK & MARKISON (BRCM)
106 E. 6th Street, Suite 900
AUSTIN, TX 78701
EXAMINER
LANGHNOJA, KUNAL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2423
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/28/2017 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):
MMURDOCK@ TEXASPATENTS .COM
bpierotti @ texaspatents .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEYHAN KARAOGUZ and JAMES BENNETT
Appeal 2015-004537
Application 10/675,458
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-004537
Application 10/675,458
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 39-60. This appeal is related to Appeal 2009-014000, decided Feb.
16, 2011. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to a headend pre-processing media guide
support for personal media exchange network. Claim 39, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
39. A method for generating a media guide, the method
comprising:
generating a personal media view by a first media
processing system of personal media content stored on at least
one personal media device operatively coupled to the first media
processing system over a local area network;
receiving a selection by the first media processing system
of one or more of the personal media content from the personal
media view;
scheduling one or more channels for the selected personal
media content by the first media processing system;
generating a media guide by the first media processing
system wherein the media guide includes the one or more
channels for the selected personal media content and one or more
channels for broadcast media content, wherein the broadcast
media content is selected from broadcast channels transmitted by
at least one broadcast service provider;
accessing by the first media processing system
information related to the broadcast media content from the at
least one broadcast service provider, wherein the information
related to the broadcast media content includes information on
scheduling of the broadcast media content; and
1 Appellants indicated that Broadcom Corporation is the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 2).
2
Appeal 2015-004537
Application 10/675,458
updating the media guide by the first media processing
system in response to the information.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Novak US 2002/0104099 A1 Aug. 1,2002
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 39-60 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Novak.
ANALYSIS
Anticipation
Claims 39—47
Appellants do not set forth separate arguments for patentability.
(App. Br. 6). As a result, we select independent claim 39 as the
representative claim for the group and address Appellants’ arguments
thereto. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
With respect to representative independent claim 39, Appellants
contend that the Examiner has failed to provide proper reasoning and an
association of the reference to the claimed features. (App. Br. 6).
We find the Examiner further details the rejection in the Examiner’s
Answer. (Ans. 2—5).
3
Appeal 2015-004537
Application 10/675,458
Appellants further contend that the Novak reference fails to disclose a
first media processing system scheduling one or more channels for the
selected personal media content that is stored on at least one personal media
device operatively coupled to the first media processing system over a local
area network. (App. Br. 7—9).
Again, we find the Examiner further details the rejection the Examiner
in the Examiner’s Answer. (Ans. 5—8).
Finally Appellants contend that in view of the Specification and under
the doctrine of claim differentiation, a person of skill in the art would not
interpret the first media processing system as equivalent to a broadcast
service provider. (App. Br. 10).
The Examiner maintains that
first media processing system is open to broader interpretation.
Wherein, first media processing system can be interpreted as a
group of devices forming a network for distributing information.
Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in
light of the specification, limitations from the specification are
not read into the claims.
(Ans. 9). We agree with the Examiner that the language of method claim 39
is drafted broadly and Appellants’ attempt to differentiate various networks,
but the language of the method claim 39 merely identifies a source of
information content, but does not actively limit the claimed method steps.
Consequently, we agree with the Examiner that the media processing system
may be interpreted broadly and may be a distributed “system.” We find
Appellants’ arguments merely recite the language of the claims and identify
4
Appeal 2015-004537
Application 10/675,458
portions of the Specification which do not clearly correspond to the specific
limitations as recited in the method of independent claim 39.2
Merely reciting the language of the claim and alleging that the
reference fails to support an anticipation rejection is insufficient to persuade
us of Examiner error. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (“A statement which
merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument
for separate patentability of the claim.”). Attorney arguments and
conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled
to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir.
1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and Ex
parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, slip op. at 7-8 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009)
(informative), available at
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/its/fd09004693.pdf.
On this record, we find Appellants have failed to present sufficient
substantive arguments and supporting evidence to persuade us of Examiner
error. Cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
(“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail
than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the
prior art.”). Weighing as a whole Appellants’ arguments, we reach a
conclusion that Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s finding
of anticipation.
2 We leave it to the Examiner to further evaluate whether there is written
description support for the claimed method in any further prosecution on the
merits.
5
Appeal 2015-004537
Application 10/675,458
Reply Brief
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s Answer failed to prove that
the Novak reference discloses the “generating a personal media view,”
“receiving a selection,” “scheduling one or more channels,” and “generating
a media guide” steps recited in independent claim 39. (Reply Br. 2—3).
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonable.
(Reply Br. 3—4). Specifically, Appellants contend:
a first media processing system scheduling one or more channels
for the selected personal media content that is stored on at least
one personal media device operatively coupled to the first media
processing system over a local area network would not be
reasonably interpreted as a broadcast service provider network
that distributes broadcast media content over broadcast channels.
The specification of the application and claim 39 clearly
differentiates between a media processing system and a
broadcast service provider.
(Reply Br. 4). Appellants contend that the figures and application clearly
differentiate the media processing system (MPS) 101 at a User’s Home 102
and a broadcast channel provider 117 in Figure 1 and a person of skill in the
art would not interpret the MPS 101 as including a broadcast channel
provider 117. (Reply Br. 6).
We disagree with Appellants and find that the Specification does not
define any of the architecture and, instead, merely provides optional
configurations which are drafted with the term “may” throughout the
proffered support. Moreover, we find language of method claim 39 does not
set forth a broadcast service provider network in the claim, but merely
identifies a source of the second/broadcast media content (information) and
does not set forth an active step in the method of independent claim 39. We
further find Appellants’ Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter, which is
6
Appeal 2015-004537
Application 10/675,458
required to provide “a concise explanation of the subject matter defined in
each of the rejected independent claims” (37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)), does
not identify any structure to differentiate one network from another network
in the claimed method and merely identifies the source of the channels
(information and labels).3 Consequently, Appellants’ argument does not
show an unreasonable interpretation by the Examiner nor error in the
Examiner’s factual findings.
Appellants further contend, based upon the doctrine of claim
differentiation, the Examiner’s reliance upon the broadcast service network
as part of the first media processing system is inappropriate because the
claim recites both the first media processing system and the broadcast
service provider. (Reply Br. 6—7). Appellants further contend that the
Novak reference describes uploading media objects to a server or website
(Reply Br. 7). Appellants still further contend that the Novak reference
describes that media programs uploaded to a website are distributed to
subscribers over a broadcast channel on cable network 134 by a cable
service provider 108. The broadcast schedule may be incorporated into the
EPG 153 and combined with listings of traditional television broadcast
channels. (Reply Br. 9). Appellants finally contend that the Final Office
Action is unreasonable in that it asserts that the description in the Novak
3 Additionally, we note that Appellant's Summary of the Claimed Subject
Matter sets forth the step of generating a personal media view and a
sequence of method steps, but we find the corresponding citations do not
correspond to the step of generating a personal media view nor the claimed
process to generate the electronic programming guide as recited in the
language of independent claim 39. We leave it to the Examiner to further
evaluate the written description support for this claimed method and whether
the claims particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
7
Appeal 2015-004537
Application 10/675,458
reference of media programs that are scheduled and distributed to
subscribers over a broadcast channel in a cable network 134 by a cable
service provider 108 discloses the elements of claim 39. (Reply Br. 9).
Appellants finally contend that the strict standard for 102 has not been met
and repeat the language of the claim and conclude that the rejection is in
error.
As discussed above, Appellants’ arguments do not identify any error
in the factual findings with respect to the claimed method. Appellants’
arguments regarding unclaimed subject matter is unpersuasive of error in the
Examiner’s finding of anticipation. See In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362,
1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[The] proffered facts ... are not commensurate with
the claim scope and are therefore unpersuasive.”). As a result, Appellants do
not identify error in the Examiner’s finding of anticipation of representative
independent claim 39.
Claims 48—60
With respect to independent claims 48 and 57 and their respective
dependent claims, Appellants rely upon the reasoning advanced with respect
to representative independent claim 39. (App. Br. 14). Because we find
Appellants’ argument to be unpersuasive with respect to independent claim
39, we sustain the rejection independent claims 48 and 57 and their
respective dependent claims, not separately argued, for the same reasons
discussed above.
8
Appeal 2015-004537
Application 10/675,458
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 39—60 based upon
anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claims 39 — 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9