Ex Parte Luu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2016

12042142 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/042,142 03/04/2008
20991 7590 04/28/2016
THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC.
PA TENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION
CA I LAI I Al09
2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Trang V. Luu
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
PD-208005 2786
EXAMINER
REDDIV ALAM, SRINIV ASAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte TRANG V. LUU, MARKT. TAKAMOTO,
JONATHAN L. TRONSON, and GILBERT ZALDIVAR
Appeal2014-005093
Application 12/042,142
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
NABEEL U. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-005093
Application 12/042,142
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-23. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis and
formatting added):
1. A method of configuring a broadcast system comprising:
[(A)] generating an allocation chart for a broadcast system;
[(B)] communicating a first portion of the allocation chart less
than the allocation chart to a first broadcast system component;
[ ( C)] configuring the first broadcast system component to
broadcast using the first portion of the allocation chart;
[(D)] communicating a second portion of the allocation chart to
a second broadcast system component, said first portion different than
the second portion;
[(E)] configuring the second broadcast system component to
broadcast using the second portion of the allocation chart.
Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1-12, and 15-23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Summers et al. (US
2003/0217362 Al; Nov. 20, 2003) and Bonomi et al. (US 6,769,127 Bl;
July 27, 2004). 1
1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-12 and 15-23. As to
claims 2-12 and 15-23, Appellants address them only by referencing the
arguments for claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision, claims 2-12 and
15-23 are not discussed further herein.
2
Appeal2014-005093
Application 12/042,142
The Examiner rejected claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Summers, Bonomi, and
Chapman et al. (US 2002/0066102 Al; May 30, 2002).2
Appellants' Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
While Summers includes the example schedule/table,
Summers is silent as to the scheduler 95 or another component
actually generating that schedule/table. As described above,
Summers merely states that, for real-time content, the scheduler
95 assigns a start time and a channel and that, for files, the
scheduler 95 assigns quality of service and delivery
requirements.
Summers, however, is silent as to generating an
allocation chart for a broadcast system, as in claim 1. Bonomi is
also silent as to generating an allocation chart for a broadcast
system.
App. Br. 6.
2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Bonomi is silent as to configuring the client machines to
broadcast using portions of anything.
App. Br. 9.
2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 13 and 14. Rather,
Appellants address these claims only by referencing the arguments for claim
1. Thus, the rejection of these claims turns on our decision as to claim 1.
Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further
herein.
3
Appeal2014-005093
Application 12/042,142
3. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Bonomi is silent as to communicating a first and second
portions of an allocation chart to first and second broadcast
system components, respectively, as in claim 1.
App. Br. 7.
The Examiner's allegation that Bonomi teaches communicating
first and second portions of the allocation chart, however, is
illogical since Bonomi and Summers are different references
and Bonomi does not teach generating an allocation chart.
App. Br. 8.
Bonomi is silent as to the customized program guides being less
than all of the original program guide.
App. Br. 8.
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants' conclusions. Except as noted below, we adopt as
our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following additional points.
4
Appeal2014-005093
Application 12/042,142
As to Appellants' above contention 1, we disagree with Appellants'
argument for the reasons set forth by the Examiner. Ans. 14. We do not
find where Appellants explain why the "assigns quality of service and
delivery requirements to files designated for delivery over the video pump"
(Summers i-f 90), relied on by the Examiner, is not "generating" as claimed.
Rather, Appellants merely assert that the references are silent as to
generating an allocation chart for a broadcast system.
As to Appellants' above contention 2, we disagree. The Examiner's
rejection points to Figure 11 of Summers (Final Action 2) the description of
which states:
FIG. 11 is a schematic representation of a DTH satellite
broadcasting system according to an embodiment of the present
invention. Similar to FIG. 2, a wideband satellite broadcasting
system includes a broadcast center 112, an uplink facility 113, a
space segment 114, consumer electronics 115, and a control
center 116.
Summers i1 99. Bonomi 1s similarly directed to a portion of such a
broadcasting system. Bonomi Fig. lB. Appellants assert that Summers and
Bonomi do not operate broadcast systems. 3 A plain reading of Summers
i-fi-1 90-91 is that parameters of the broadcasting system are specified in the
table and operation is controlled based thereon. As to Bonomi, column 27,
lines 1-22, indicate that operation of the broadcast system (control of assets)
may be based on data from the program guide (allocation chart). An artisan
would recognize that the guide is used to configure the broadcast system of
Bonomi.
3 Appellants appear to be asserting a narrow construction of the claimed
"broadcast system," without explicitly arguing therefor. If so, such an
assertion, without more, is unpersuasive.
5
Appeal2014-005093
Application 12/042,142
As to Appellants' above contention 3, we disagree with Appellants'
argument for the reasons above and set forth by the Examiner (Ans. 15-16).
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-23 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1-23 are not patentable.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-23 are affirmed.
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
6