UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS INC.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 15, 20212020003194 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation