Ex Parte Luu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2016

12042098 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/042,098 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-208004 2710
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
Appeal2014-005090
Application 12/042,098
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-005090
Application 12/042,098
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-19. 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 first allocation chart for the broadcast system
with a first effective time;
[(B)] communicating at least a portion of the first allocation
chart to a plurality of broadcast system components;
[(C)] determining a local time;
[(D)] when the local time is equal to or greater than the
effective time, operating the broadcast system using the first
allocation chart;
[ (E)] generating second allocation chart for the broadcast
system with a second effective time;
[ (F)] communicating at least a portion of the second allocation
chart to the plurality of broadcast system components; and
[(G)] when the local time is equal to or greater than the second
effective time, switching operation of the broadcast system from the
first allocation chart to the second allocation chart.
2
Appeal2014-005090
Application 12/042,098
Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1-9, 11, 12, and 15-19 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
The Examiner rejected claims 10, 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.
1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-9, 11, 12, and 15-19. As
to claims 2-9, 11, 12, and 15-19, Appellants address them only by
referencing the arguments for claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision,
claims 2-9, 11, 12, and 15-19 are not discussed further herein.
2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 10, 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
Appeal2014-005090
Application 12/042,098
App. Br. 6.
2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Summers is silent as to operating a broadcast system using the
table/schedule described above (i.e., the alleged first allocation
chart).
App. Br. 7.
[T]he client machines of Bonomi do not broadcast anything and
therefore cannot be considered a broadcast system.
Additionally, Bonomi does not operate a broadcast system
using different program guides, and Bonomi does not switch
operation of the broadcast system based on comparisons of
local time with effective times associated with the different
program guides.
App. Br. 8-9.
3. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Appellant notes that the Examiner provides contradictory
statements as to what Summers does and does not teach. The
Examiner alleges that Summers teaches "operating the
broadcast system using the first allocation chart" and then states
that Summers does not teach "operating the broadcast system
using the first allocation chart." See the Final Office Action, p.
3.
App. Br. 7.
4. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[T]he Examiner has not provided any reasoning or support for
why one of skill in the art at the time of the invention would
have applied Bonomi' s teachings of generating customized
program guides based on each subscriber's requirements to
Summer's schedule/table (i.e., the alleged first allocation chart
of claim 1 ).
4
Appeal2014-005090
Application 12/042,098
App. Br. 9.
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.
As to Appellants' above contention 1, we disagree with Appellants'
argument for the reasons set forth by the Examiner. Ans. 14--15. 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
5
Appeal2014-005090
Application 12/042,098
system includes a broadcast center 112, an uplink facility 113, a
space segment 114, consumer electronics 115, and a control
center 116.
Summers i-f 99. Bonomi is 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); and column
18, lines 53-67, state that program guides can be updated (switched) at
given times. An artisan would recognize that such updated data of the guide
is applicable to the above operation of the broadcast system, thus, switching
that operation.
As to Appellants' above contention 3, we disagree with Appellants'
argument for the reasons set forth by the Examiner. Ans. 19. Appellants'
argument, that "[ t ]he Examiner ... states that Summers does not teach
'operating the broadcast system using the first allocation chart"' (App. Br.
7), overlooks the conditional clause "when the local time is equal to or
greater than the effective time, operating the broadcast system using the
first allocation chart," which is integral to the Examiner's statement of the
limitation that Summers does not teach.
As to Appellants' above contention 4, we disagree. Appellants'
argument turns on reading Bonomi solely as a specific teaching of
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.
6
Appeal2014-005090
Application 12/042,098
generating customized program guides (no control data), whereas the
Examiner rejection turns on the general teaching of program guides as
allocation charts with updated control information. As discussed above, we
agree with the Examiner that Bonomi includes that operation (i.e., control)
of the broadcast system may be based on data from the program guide
(allocation chart with control information).
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-19 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1-19 are not patentable.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-19 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
7