Ex Parte Riley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2018

12492981 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/492,981 0612612009
141451 7590 04/26/2018
AT&T Legal Dept. - [HDP]
Attention: Patent Docketing, Room 2A-207
One AT&T Way
Bedminster, NJ 07921
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
XAVIER D. RILEY
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.
DTV208053 8388
EXAMINER
CHEN,CAIY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2018 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
Ex parte XAVIER D. RILEY, LONNIE S. CLABAUGH,
PHILIP F. KUAN, and KSATRIA G. WILLIAMS 1
Appeal2017-001444
Application 12/492,981
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EVANS, JOHN G. NEW, and HUNG H. BUI,
Administrative Patent Judges.
NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify The DIRECTV Group, Inc. as the real party-in-interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-001444
Application 12/492,981
SUMMARY
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-23. Specifically, claims 1-3, 5-9,
11-20, and 22-23 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over the combination of Ellis et al. (US 2008/0059884 Al,
March 6, 2008) ("Ellis"), Kaneko et al. (US 6,671,454 B 1, December 30,
2003) ("Kaneko")2 and Ellis et al. (US 2003/0149988 Al, August 7, 2003)
("Ellis '988").
Claims 4 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Ellis, Kaneko, Ellis '988, and Gaydou et al.
(US 2005/0166230 Al, July 28, 2005) ("Gaydou").
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over the combination of Ellis, Kaneko, Ellis '988, and Ellis et al. (US
2003/0146940 Al, August 7, 2003) ("Ellis '940").
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
2 In the Final Office Action and in the briefs, as well as in the electronic file
wrapper, the Examiner and Appellants cite to Kaneko as "US 6,674,454
B 1." See, e.g., Final Act. 2; App. Br. 6. No such patent exists. US Patent
No. 6,671_,454 B2_ lists Y. Nomura as the sole inventor and is directed to
non-analogous art (viz., a "color image forming apparatus"). We have
ascertained that US 6,671,454 Bl, issued to Y. Kaneko et al., for a
"program information providing apparatus and record/playback control
apparatus," is the correct art cited for the instant rejections, and we
consequently rely upon this latter reference in our Decision.
2
Appeal2017-001444
Application 12/492,981
NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to system and method for
communicating with a user device includes an interactive head end and a
broadcast channel management system communicating content channel data
to the interactive head end. The interactive head end forms a streaming
service in response to the content channel data and communicates interactive
content to the user device in response to the streaming service. Abstract.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal and recites:
1. A method comprising:
receiving content channel data from a broadcast channel
management system, said content channel data comprising a
content channel start time, a content channel stop time, a content
channel bit rate;
forming a streaming service at an interactive content head
end by linking streaming service data that includes a service
channel identifier and a content channel identifier with the
content channel data;
forming a reservation by allocating broadcasting system
resources for interactive content based on forming the streaming
service at the interactive content head end;
communicating the reservation to an interactive streaming
server;
in response to the reservation, communicating interactive
content from the interactive streaming server through the
streaming service;
3
Appeal2017-001444
Application 12/492,981
generating an announcement compnsmg streaming
service data and content channel data;
communicating the announcement to the user devices; and
tuning the user devices to the streaming service in
response to the announcement.
App. Br. 17.
ISSUE AND ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner's findings of fact and conclusions that the
appealed claims are obvious over the cited prior art. We address the
arguments raised by Appellants below.
A. Rejection of claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-20, and 22-23
Issue
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding that the combined
cited prior art teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 1 reciting:
[R ]eceiving content channel data from a broadcast channel
management system, the content channel data comprises a
content channel start time, a content channel stop time, a content
channel bit rate; and forming a streaming service at an interactive
content head end by linking streaming service data that includes
a service channel identifier and a content channel identifier with
the content channel data.
App. Br. 7.
Analysis
The Examiner finds, in relevant part, that Ellis teaches receiving
content channel data comprises receiving a content channel start time, a
4
Appeal2017-001444
Application 12/492,981
content channel stop time; and forming a streaming service at an interactive
head end by linking the streaming service data that includes a service
channel identifier and a content identifier and the content channel data.
Final Act. 3--4 (citing Ellis i-fi-167---68, 78; Figs. 5, 22).
Appellants acknowledge Ellis teaches forming a streaming service at
an interactive head end by linking the streaming service data that includes a
service channel identifier and a content identifier with the content channel
data. App. Br. 7 (citing Final Act. 4). Specifically, Appellants acknowledge
Figure 5 of Ellis and its associated text (paragraph [0078]) teach that a
video-on-demand ("VOD") service (which the Examiner identifies as the
claimed streaming service) is formed for a program (e.g., Capote 2005)
associated with the VOD channel (i.e., the content channel data) in a content
schedule guide. Id.
Appellants argue, however, that claim 1 requires forming a streaming
service at an interactive content head end by linking streaming service data
that includes a service channel identifier and a content channel identifier
with the content channel data. App. Br. 8. Appellants assert that the
Examiner has not addressed this limitation. Id.
Specifically, Appellants argue, a content identifier is not the same as a
content channel identifier (as in claim 1). App. Br. 8. According to
Appellants, Figure 5 of Ellis illustrates a "coming soon" display screen 500,
as reproduced below:
5
Appeal2017-001444
Application 12/492,981
/ COMING SOON
(
\
Capote (2005) ~'13 ---'"* * * *
l
512 <, April ...r ../' ./' (Firm} RIO
t VOD (Biography drama) Philip Seymour Hoffman
50:2 ---.,, : VO D,_ ....,. Capote..._506
WATCH THE
SOPRANOS!
SEASON 6 FINAt..cE
JUNE 10· AT 7PM ON
14HBO H•
-516
508 ~,./ ..r .., April
VOD Brokeback Mountain ..r April
HBO The Sopranos ../'../March
ABC Academy Awards .., ..r ../' 3/5
ABC The Ten Commandments Spring
ESPN Final Four
\
..r ../' ./ March
t
J
~
._- /
FIG.5
As shown in Ellis' Figure 5, an entry 502 on display screen 500 may
include a title area 506 (e.g., Capote, Brokeback Mountain, etc.), a source
area 504 (e.g., VOD, HBO, ABC, etc.), and an availability area 510 (e.g.,
April, March, etc.). Id. (citing Ellis i-f 79). However, Appellants assert, Ellis
is silent with respect to forming a streaming service at an interactive head
end by linking the streaming service data that includes a service channel
identifier and a content channel identifier with the content channel data, as
recited in claim 1. Id. Furthermore, Appellants argue, the teachings of
Kaneko and Ellis '988 do not cure the alleged deficiencies of Ellis. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Ellis teaches: "[ t ]he
user may select to view coming-soon information from one or more sources.
Each source may be associated with its own coming-soon database stored at
the user equipment device or at a headend server." Ellis i-f 18 (emphasis
added). Ellis thus expressly teaches an "interactive content head end," from
which content is sent to the user, as recited in claim 1.
6
Appeal2017-001444
Application 12/492,981
Ellis further teaches that, with respect to such content:
"Season" and "episode" tags may identify the season and episode
numbers, respectively. A "rating" tag may identify an editorial
rating (e.g., star rating), or content rating (e.g., MPAA or TV
rating) associated with the coming-soon content. A "date" tag
may identify the scheduled broadcast, availability, or release date
of the coming-soon content. "Start_time" and "run_time" tags
may identify the schedule start time or availability time and the
scheduled duration of the coming-soon content, respectively. A
"source" tag may identify the channel number, channel name, or
source of the coming-soon content or the coming-soon
announcement (e.g., MLB.com).
Ellis if 67.
Claim 1 requires "linking streaming service data that includes a
service channel identifier and a content channel identifier with the content
channel data." Appellants' Specification provides no explicit definition of
the claim terms "service channel identifier," "content channel identifier," or
"content channel data." We therefore adopt the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim term consistent with its use in the Specification.
See In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (Claims under examination before the PTO are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification). Paragraph
[0067] of Ellis teaches that various "tags" can be added (i.e., "linked") to
streaming service data sent to the user. Such tags can provide information
about the season, episode, rating, availability, and start and end times of
content. We agree with the Examiner that the information conveyed by
these tags correspond to "content channel data" because they convey
information relating to the identification of (i.e., the properties of) the
content (i.e., the identity of the upcoming movie). Paragraph [0067] of Ellis
7
Appeal2017-001444
Application 12/492,981
also teaches that: "A 'source' tag may identify the channel number, channel
name, or source of the coming-soon content." We find that a source tag
disclosing the channel number corresponds to the claimed "content channel
identifier" because the number of the channel serves to identify the channel
upon which the content is contained. Similarly, we find that a tag disclosing
the identity of the channel, e.g., HBO, ABC, ESPN, etc. (see Ellis Figure 5)
corresponds to a "service channel identifier," because it identifies the service
providing the content. We consequently agree with the Examiner that Ellis
teaches the disputed limitation.
Issue 2
Appellants argue the combined cited prior art does not teach or
suggest the limitation of claim 1 reciting:
forming a reservation by allocating broadcasting system
resources for interactive content based on forming the streaming
service at the interactive content head end; communicating the
reservation to an interactive streaming server; in response to the
reservation, communicating interactive content from the
interactive streaming server through the streaming service; and
communicating the announcement to the user devices.
App. Br. 9.
Analysis
Appellants argue that the Examiner relies upon Ellis '988 as teaching
the limitation. App. Br. 9 (citing Final Act. 5). Specifically, Appellants
assert, the Examiner finds that Figures 14A and 14B of Ellis '988 as
teaching: (1) forming a reservation by allocating broadcasting system
8
Appeal2017-001444
Application 12/492,981
resources for interactive content based on forming the streaming service at
the interactive content head end; and (2) communicating the reservation to
an interactive streaming server. Id.
Appellants contend, however, that Ellis '988 is silent with respect to
forming a reservation by allocating broadcasting system resources for
interactive content based on forming the streaming service at the interactive
content head end, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 10. According to
Appellants, claim 1 requires that the streaming service is formed at the
interactive content head end, and the interactive content is communicated,
from the interactive streaming server through the streaming service (at the
head end). Id. Appellants assert that Ellis '988 teaches that the program
guide:
may provide the user with an opportunity to record programs on
demand at remote media server 24 or local media server 29, to
view listings or directories of the programs that have been
recorded or selected for recording, and to play videos and
associated program guide data on demand from remote media
server 24 or local media server 29.
Id. (citing Ellis '988 if 133).
Appellants next argue that the Examiner relies upon Figures 18B and
18C of Ellis '988 as teaching: (1) in response to the reservation,
communicating interactive content from the interactive streaming server
through the streaming service forming a reservation by allocating
broadcasting system resources for interactive content based on forming the
streaming service at the interactive content head end; and (2) communicating
the announcement to the user devices. App. Br. 11 (citing Final Act. 5).
Appellants assert that Figures 18B and 18C of Ellis '988 show listings of
9
Appeal2017-001444
Application 12/492,981
recorded programs. Id. (also citing Ellis '988 i-fi-f 145-146). Specifically,
Appellants argue, paragraph [0145] of Ellis '988 teaches that the listing may
display "the channels and titles of the recorded programs, the dates and
times they are recorded, and any other suitable information." Id. In other
words, Appellants assert, Ellis '988 teaches that the channel from which the
program was recorded, and the date and time of the recording may be
displayed. Id.
However, Appellants contend, Ellis '988 is silent with respect to the
limitations of claim 1 requiring: (1) in response to the reservation,
communicating interactive content from the interactive streaming server
through the streaming service forming a reservation by allocating
broadcasting system resources for interactive content based on forming the
streaming service at the interactive content head end; and/or (2)
communicating the announcement to the user devices, as in claim 1. Id.
The Examiner responds that Ellis '988 teaches that a recording
reservation for a program may be made upon a user's selection from the
user's end equipment at the remote media server or at the local media server.
Ans. 12 (citing Ellis '988 i-fi-f 133-134, Fig. 14A). The Examiner finds that
Ellis '988 teaches that the recording selection communicated from the user's
equipment causes the local or remote media server to perform the recording
at the local media server or the remote media server and provide the
recorded program to stream the content to the user request, thus requiring the
local or remote media server to allocate system resources to record the
requested program. Id. (citing Ellis '988 i-f 143,145).
The Examiner further finds that Ellis '988 teaches that, in response to
the user's request and the system's recording of the program, the local or
10
Appeal2017-001444
Application 12/492,981
remote media server would provide a recording directory to the user, as
illustrated in Figures 18A-18D of Ellis '988. Ans. 13 (also citing Ellis '988
i-fi-f 143-148). The Examiner finds that the recording directory is presented
as an announcement to the user that the reserved program is being recorded,
and allows the user to make a selection to watch the recorded such that the
recording program on demand. Id. (citing Ellis '988 i-fi-f 149-151).
We agree with the Examiner. Ellis '988 teaches:
When a user indicates a desire to record a program or program
grouping on remote media server 24 or local media server 29
(and possibly a desire to confirm recording of the program), the
program guide generates a record request that is transmitted to
the appropriate remote media server by communications device
51(FIG.9).
Ellis '988 i-f 142. Ellis '988 also teaches that: "The remote media server may
be located at a program guide distribution facility or other suitable
distribution facility (e.g., a cable system headend, a broadcast distribution
facility, a satellite television distribution facility, or any other suitable type
of television distribution facility)." Id. at 13 (emphasis added). We agree
with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the remote media server 24 of Ellis '988 corresponds to, or
is located at, the "interactive content head end" of claim 1, and that Ellis
'988 consequently teaches the limitation of "forming a reservation by
allocating broadcasting system resources for interactive content based on
forming the streaming service at the interactive content head end; [and]
communicating the reservation to an interactive streaming server."
Ellis '988 further teaches:
11
Appeal2017-001444
Application 12/492,981
Once the user has selected for playback a program
recorded on remote media server 24, the program guide may
indicate to the user a charge for playing back the program and
prompt the user to confirm the playback.
Once the user has selected a listing and indicated a desire
that its associated program be played back (and if necessary
confirmed the playback), the program guide may issue a play
back request to remote media server 24 or local media server 29.
Ellis '988 i-f 151-152. Ellis '988 further teaches that: "The program guide
may provide the user with the opportunity to access a directory or other such
list of programs that have been recorded for the user on remote media server
24 or local media server 29." Ellis '988 i-f 145. Ellis '988 thus teaches that,
in response to a reservation being made by the user, interactive content (i.e.,
indication of a user charge, offering the user to select a listing) from the
interactive streaming server is generated, and an announcement comprising
streaming service data and content channel data, and communicating the
announcement to the user devices, as recited in claim 1.
Finally, Ellis '988 teaches: "At step 2910, suitable equipment at
program guide distribution facility 16 (e.g., distribution equipment 21) tunes
to the channel (analog or digital) on which the requested program is carried.
This may be done, for example, in response to a request by remote media
server 24." Ellis '988 i-f 192.
We therefore agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have recognized that Ellis '988 teaches: "in response to the
reservation, communicating interactive content from the interactive
streaming server through the streaming service; generating an announcement
12
Appeal2017-001444
Application 12/492,981
comprising streaming service data and content channel data; communicating
the announcement to the user devices; and tuning the user devices to the
streaming service in response to the announcement," as recited in claim 1.
Issue 3
Appellants argue the Examiner erred by not articulation a reason why
a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine
the references. App. Br. 12.
Analysis
Appellants contend that Examiner finds only that "it would be obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Ellis to
include Kaneko to include Ellis ['988] in order to increase user's viewing
experience." App. Br. 12. Appellants argue that the Examiner has merely
provided conclusory statements without the "articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness"
required by the Supreme Court in KSR Int'! v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,
1741 (2007). Id. According to Appellants, the Examiner's finding is
speculative and unclear as to how or why the proposed combination of Ellis,
Kaneko, and Ellis '988 would "increase user's viewing experience." Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Ellis, Ellis '988, and
Kaneko are all highly analogous art directed to media content streaming
delivery and recording systems; indeed, two of the references share a
common inventor. The Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have been motivated to combining the teachings of the closely-
related references to "to increase user's viewing experience." Final Act. 5.
13
Appeal2017-001444
Application 12/492,981
A prima facie case for obviousness "requires a suggestion of all
limitations in a claim," CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int'! Corp., 349 F.3d 1333,
1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) and "a reason that would have prompted a person of
ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the
claimed new invention does." KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. However, KSR also
established that 35 U.S.C. § 103 bars patentability unless "the improvement
is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. We find this latter point
determinative. In the instant appeal, and as we have explained, the
Examiner has combined the teachings of closely-related prior art to establish
a case that the Appellants' claimed invention is no more than a prima facie
predictable and obvious use of prior art elements according to their
established functions as a means of further enhancing a viewer's experience
in locating, scheduling, remotely recording, and streaming online media
content. We consequently affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5-
9, 11-20 and 22-23.
B. Rejection of claims 18-20, 22, and 23
Appellants argue these claims together and separately from the
remaining claims. App. Br. 13. Appellants contend that, in the Final Office
Action, the Examiner states only that: "[ r ]egarding claim 18, the instant
claim is analyzed with respect to claim 1." Id. (citing Final Act. 8).
Appellants contend, however, that independent claim 18 includes
different features than claim 1, which the Examiner has allegedly not
considered and addressed. App. Br. 13. Appellants argue that the Examiner
failed to at least consider the limitations of claim 18 reciting:
14
Appeal2017-001444
Application 12/492,981
"receiving content channel data from a broadcast channel management
system and an interactive content scheduler of an interactive content head
end; forming a streaming service from streaming service data and content
channel data at the interactive content scheduler; forming a reservation
having a reservation identifier, a stop time and end time corresponding to the
streaming service; [and/ or] storing the reservation in a database. Id. at 13-
14. According to Appellants, the Examiner also failed to consider the
limitations of claim 18 reciting:
communicating a reservation message compnsmg the
reservation to an interactive streaming server of the interactive
content head end from the interactive content scheduler;
communicating a channel object from a program guide system
corresponding to the streaming service so that the user device can
tune to interactive content for the streaming service using the
object; and tuning the user device to the content in response to
the channel object.
Id. at 14.
We are not persuaded. As an initial matter, Appellants recite a
number of limitations of claim 18 and assert that the Examiner has not
addressed them specifically, and has therefore failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness. However, Appellants make no effort to argue or
explain why the Examiner's findings of fact and conclusion of obviousness
with respect to claim 1 are inapplicable to the asserted limitations of claim
18, beyond the mere conclusory assertion that the Examiner has not
addressed the limitations in question. By way of example, Appellants
contend that the Examiner's findings with respect to claim 1 are not
applicable to the limitation of claim 18 reciting:
[ ( 1) receiving content channel data from a broadcast channel
management system and an interactive content scheduler of an
15
Appeal2017-001444
Application 12/492,981
interactive content head end; (2) forming a streaming service
from streaming service data and content channel data at the
interactive content scheduler; (3)forming a reservation having a
reservation identifier, a stop time and end time corresponding to
the streaming service; [and/or] storing the reservation in a
database.
(Emphases added). Appellants make no argument as to why the Examiner's
findings with respect to the teachings of Ellis and Ellis '988 do not teach or
suggest the limitations quoted by Appellants other than to merely assert that
they do not. However, we have explained supra why we agree with the
Examiner that the combined cited prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1
reciting: (1) receiving content channel data from a broadcast channel
management system; (2) forming a streaming service at an interactive
content head end by linking streaming service data that includes a service
channel identifier and a content channel identifier with the content channel
data; and (3)forming a reservation by allocating broadcasting system
resources for interactive content based on forming the streaming service at
the interactive content head end. (Emphases added).
Claim 1 does not expressly recite: "storing the reservation in a
database;" however, the Examiner expressly finds, and we agree, that Ellis
'940 teaches this limitation. See Final Act. 10.
More importantly, however, Appellants make no attempt to explain,
nor provide any evidence of record to support, why the Examiner's findings
with respect to claim 1 quoted above are not equally applicable to the
correspondingly quoted limitations of claim 18 beyond a conclusory
assertion that they are not. As such, Appellants' arguments are no more than
unsupported attorney argument, to which we accord little probative weight.
16
Appeal2017-001444
Application 12/492,981
See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Attorney arguments
and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are
entitled to little probative value). We consequently affirm the Examiner's
rejection of claims 18-20, 22, and 23.
C. Rejection of claims 4, 10, and 21
Appellants argue claims 4, 10, and 21 together and also argue claim
10 separately. App. Br. 14--15. Appellants rely upon the same arguments
advanced with respect to claims 1 and 18 supra, contending that Gaydou and
Ellis '940 do not cure the alleged deficiencies of Ellis, Kaneko, and Ellis
'988.
We have explained in Section A supra why we do not find
Appellants' arguments regarding the alleged deficiencies of the combined
prior art persuasive. We find Appellants' arguments regarding claims 4, 10,
and 21 no more persuasive for the same reasons discussed, and we
consequently affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 10, and 21.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-23 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
17