UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 15, 2021

2020003194 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 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.
13/793,519 03/11/2013 Paul D. Arling 81230.164US1 1605
34018 7590 12/15/2021
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
77 W. Wacker Drive
Suite 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732
EXAMINER
SALTARELLI, DOMINIC D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2021 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):
chiipmail@gtlaw.com
clairt@gtlaw.com
jarosikg@gtlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte PAUL D. ARLING
________________

Appeal 2020-003194
Application 13/793,519
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 1–10.1 This appeal is related to
two prior appeal (2015-004162 and 2017-011815) during prosecution of this
application. In each decision, the Board affirmed the Examiner’s decision
rejecting the pending claims. Ex parte Arling, No. 2015-00416, at *5 (PTAB
Oct. 4, 2016); Ex parte Arling, No. 2017-011815, at *7 (PTAB Oct. 1,
2018). On Request for Rehearing, the Decision in Appeal number 2017-

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Universal Electronics Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003194
Application 13/793,519

2

011815 was modified to expand the discussion, but the Examiner’s decision
rejecting the pending claims was affirmed. Ex parte Arling, No. 2017-
001815, Dec. on Req. for Reh’g at *9 (Dec. 4, 2018). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to facilitating selection of a
“channel lineup that is appropriate for a Multi-System Operator (MSO)
provider and [a] current geographical location of [a] portable device.”
Abstract.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references (only the first named
inventor of each reference is listed):
Name Reference Date
Cusick US 2010/0311399 A1 Dec. 9, 2010
Gaquin US 2011/0258271 A1 Oct. 20, 2011
Ukkadam US 2011/0283333 A1 Nov. 17, 2011
Demchenko US 2012/0151525 A1 June 4, 2012
Lee US 2013/0047174 A1 Feb. 21, 2013
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–10 as follows:
Claims 1–5, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Cusick, Ukkadam, and further in view of
Demchenko. Final Act. 3–7.
Claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Cusick, Ukkadam, Demchenko, and further in view of Lee. Id. at 7–8.
Appeal 2020-003194
Application 13/793,519

3

Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Cusick, Ukkadam, Demchenko, and further in view of Gaquin. Id. at 8.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–10
Claim 1, which is representative with respect to claims 1–10, is
reproduced below (disputed and key limitations emphasized and bracketing
added).
1. A method for configuring a program guide graphical user
interface (GUI) on a portable device, comprising:
[1] creating a Multi-System Operator (MSO) map in which
each of a plurality of MSO providers is correlated to a
geographical location and a set-top box identity;
determining a current geographical location of the portable
device;
receiving by the portable device data indicative of an identity of
a set-top box;
[2] using the data indicative of the identity of the set-top box
and the determined current geographical location of the
portable device to identify within the created MSO map, a one
of the plurality of MSO providers;
identifying a channel lineup that is appropriate for the identified
one of the plurality of MSO providers and the determined
current geographical location of the portable device; and
configuring the program guide GUI on the portable device
whereby the selected channel lineup is displayable to a user of
the portable device for use in commanding tuning operations of
the set-top box.
Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.).
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Cusick’s use of a user’s
current location when accessing a media database, so that a user can select a
Appeal 2020-003194
Application 13/793,519

4

service provider of media, teaches or suggests most of recitations [1] and
[2]. Final Act. 3–4 (citing, e.g., Cusick ¶¶ 46–49, 105, 107, 171–72, and
Fig. 3g); Ans. 3–4 (citing, e.g., Cusick ¶¶ 165, 184). The Examiner finds in
particular that Cusick’s teachings and suggestions, as they relate to
[2] “using . . . the determined current geographical location of the portable
device to identify within the created MSO map, a one of the plurality of
MSO providers,” also teach or suggest [1] “creating a Multi-System
Operator (MSO) map in which each of a plurality of MSO providers is
correlated to a geographical location.” Ans. 3 (“The existence of an MSO
map[,] which correlates MSO providers with both geographic locations and
set top box identities[,] was both previously claimed and addressed.
Appellant[] . . . merely repositioned said limitation to a different location
within the claim and added the term ‘create.’”). The Examiner relies on
Ukkadam’s authentication of a user device to determine whether it is
authorized to receive media content to teach or suggest the set-top box
identity data limitations of recitations [1] and [2]. Final Act. 4–5 (citing
Ukkadam ¶¶ 48–50, 54, 56, 58–59, 91–92, 95, and Fig. 3); Ans. 4.
Appellant contends the Examiner errs because
Fig. 3g of Cusick does not disclose a MSO map, let alone a
MSO map in which each of a plurality of MSO providers is
correlated to a geographical location and a set-top box identity.
Rather, cited to Fig. 3g of Cusick simply illustrates a “screen of
an interactive media guidance application implemented on
mobile user equipment for displaying updated program listings
information in accordance with one embodiment of the present
invention.” ([Cusick] ¶ 21)(emphasis added). More particularly,
it is submitted that, because the “programming listings area
346” that is caused to be displayed by the interactive media
guidance application of Cusick only includes program listings
for television broadcasters (e.g., NBC, ABC, HBO, etc.) of a
Appeal 2020-003194
Application 13/793,519

5

single, user selected service provider (i.e., selected by the user
via use of a dialog box – See, Fig. 3e and ¶ 0104) based on the
user’s current location (¶ 0111), it cannot be said that the cited
to Fig. 3g of Cusick (or paragraphs 0046–0048 of Cusick[,]
which merely describe examples of typical broadcast systems)
expressly disclose these claimed elements.
Appeal Br. 4–5 (quoting Cusick ¶ 21 with emphasis added).
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because Cusick specifically
teaches transmission of a user’s location to a media database that may
aggregate media information for a plurality of service providers. Cusick
¶ 165 (cited at Ans. 4). That is, Cusick’s “interactive media guidance
application may send a request to a media database to obtain media
information for the user’s current location.” Id. ¶ 7 (emphasis added).
Cusick further teaches providing a dialog box that includes service
provider options to “allow the user to select a service provider for which to
retrieve program listings information.” Id. ¶ 105 (cited at Final Act. 4). And
Cusick’s interactive media guidance application also includes updated
location area 342. Id. ¶ 110, Fig. 3g (cited at Final Act. 3–4). Thus, Cusick
teaches or suggests that media information (e.g., what service providers are
available) is connected to a user’s location. Therefore, Cusick’s media
database represents a MSO map that has been created and that can be used to
identify, using a determined current geographical location, a one of a
plurality of MSO providers.
Appellant argues, “Ukkadam never expressly describes using a
created MSO map, in which each of a plurality of MSO providers is
correlated to a geographical location and a set-top box identity, to identify a
one of the plurality of MSO providers.” Appeal Br. 6. But as discussed
above, the Examiner relies on Cusick, not Ukkadam, to teach or suggest the
Appeal 2020-003194
Application 13/793,519

6

creation of an MSO map. The Examiner merely relies on Ukkadam to teach
or suggest modifying Cusick to further include set-top box identity
information. Specifically, the Examiner relies on Ukkadam’s identification
of the cable provider with which a user device is registered to teach or
suggest correlating geographical location and a set-top box identity (i.e.,
which service provider or service providers, for a particular location, a
portable device is authorized to access) and using such information to
identify an MSO provider. Final Act. 4–5.
The Examiner’s findings are supported by Ukkadam, which teaches
that a footprint profile that contains “a cable provider field 540 that indicates
the cable provider with which the user device is registered.” Ukkadam ¶ 59
(cited at Ans. 4).
Appellant argues,
Cusick is directed to non-television-centric platforms (i.e.,
platforms that distribute media with equipment not part of the
user’s broadcast, cable or satellite television-delivery network)
to thereby allow users to navigate among and locate desirable
video clips, full motion videos (which may include television
programs), images, music files, and other suitable media via use
of a mobile device having GPS location determining
capabilities ([Cusick] ¶ 0043), the Office must at least explain
why would one of skill in the art modify Cusick to create and
use the specifically claimed MSO map in which each of a
plurality of MSO providers is correlated to a geographical
location and a set-top box identity (i.e., the identity of an
equipment that is a part of a user’s broadcast cable or satellite
television-delivery network), even if one of skill in the wanted
to use set-top box identities “for authorization purposes” as
appears to be asserted.
Reply Br. 4–5.
Appeal 2020-003194
Application 13/793,519

7

Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because the Examiner
correctly concludes that modifying Cusick using the teachings and
suggestions of Ukkadam would have represented the combination of known
prior art elements according to known methods to yield the “predictable
result[] of providing users with direct access to in-home media content
sources.” Final Act. 5. Appellant’s argument that Cusick is directed to non-
television-centric platforms, if anything, underscores that the Examiner’s
conclusion that modifying Cusick using the teachings and suggestions of
Ukkadam is supported by a reason—expanding the scope of media services
that Cusick can provide—that has a rational underpinning. Reply Br. 4
(citing Cusick ¶ 43). Specifically, modifying Cusick’s system with the
teachings and suggestions of Ukkadam would allow for access to media
services for which authentication is required.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Cusick and Ukkadam teaches or suggests recitations [1] and [2].
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 1, and of claims 2–10, which Appellant does not argue separately.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7, 9,
10
103(a) Cusick, Ukkadam,
Demchenko
1–5, 7, 9,
10

6 103(a) Cusick, Ukkadam,
Demchenko, Lee
6
Appeal 2020-003194
Application 13/793,519

8

8 103(a) Cusick, Ukkadam,
Demchenko, Gaquin
8
Overall
Outcome
1–10
No time period for taking subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED