Ex Parte Hardy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2017

13831071 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2017)

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.
13/831,071 03/14/2013 Christofer Hardy P2012-11-03 (290110.571) 9533
70336 7590 10/03/2017
Seed IP Law Group LLP/EchoStar (290110)
701 FIFTH AVENUE
SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104
EXAMINER
EKPO, NNENNA NGOZI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2017 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):
Patentlnfo @ SeedIP. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOFER HARDY and THOMAS A. YARBOROUGH
Appeal 2017-005070
Application 13/831,071
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Invention
Appellant1 discloses examining the viewing habits of a viewer’s
geographic marketing area, and other factors, to identify video content that
may be of interest to the user. Abstract.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., which the
Appeal Brief identifies as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1
Appeal 2017-005070
Application 13/831,071
Illustrative Claim (key limitations emphasized)
1. A system, comprising:
a computer processor circuit configured to:
manage one or more personality user databases
associated with one or more users in a first geographic
marketing area to determine content preferences for the
one or more users in the first geographic marketing area,
the first geographic marketing area being one of a
plurality of geographic marketing areas, each of the
plurality of geographic marketing areas being associated
with at least one user;
manage one or more personality user databases
associated with one or more users in a second geographic
marketing area to determine content preferences for the
one or more users in the second geographic marketing
area;
manage a first marketing area viewing habits module
associated with users in the first geographic marketing
area to determine viewing habits of the one or more users
in the first geographic marketing area, the first marketing
area viewing habits module being configured to
determine viewing habits by querying set top boxes in the
first geographic marketing area for content selected for
viewing by the one or more users in the first geographic
marketing area;
manage a second marketing area viewing habits module
associated with users in the second geographic marketing
area to determine viewing habits of the one or more users
in the second geographic marketing area, the second
marketing area viewing habits module being configured
to determine viewing habits by querying set top boxes in
the second geographic marketing area for content
selected for viewing by the one or more users in the
second geographic marketing area;
identify content available for viewing from a content
database;
2
Appeal 2017-005070
Application 13/831,071
identify a first plurality of matched content titles a user in
the first geographic marketing area may have a
preference for based on a comparison of the content
available for viewing with a personality user database
associated with the user in the first geographic marketing
area, and further based on the viewing habits of other
users in the first geographic marketing area;
identify a second plurality of matched content titles a
user in the second geographic marketing area may have a
preference for based on a comparison of the content
available for viewing with a personality user database
associated with the user in the second geographic
marketing area, and further based on the viewing habits
of other users in the second geographic marketing area;
send the first plurality of matched content titles to the
user in the first geographic marketing area for display on
a first mobile communication device;
send the second plurality of matched content titles to the
user in the second geographic marketing area for display
on a second mobile communication device;
receive a selection of the first plurality of matched
content titles from the user in the first geographic
marketing area;
receive a selection of the second plurality of matched
content titles from the user in the second geographic
marketing area; and
perform an action with the selected content titles.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1,3,6, 7, 14—17, 20, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Trenz et al. (US 2010/0306708
Al; published Dec. 2, 2010). Final Act. 4—8.
3
Appeal 2017-005070
Application 13/831,071
The Examiner rejects claims 3, 7, and 16, in the alternative, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Trenz and Barton et al. (US
2003/0095791 Al; published May 22, 2003). Final Act. 19.
The Examiner rejects claims 15 and 21, in the alternative, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Trenz and Anzures et al. (US
2010/0291861 Al; published Nov. 18,2010). Final Act. 18.
The Examiner rejects claims 14 and 20, in the alternative, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Trenz, Fishman et al. (US
2012/0059825 Al; published Mar. 8, 2012), and Walter et al. (US
2009/0144776 Al; published June 4, 2009). Final Act. 16—17.
The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Trenz and Begeja et al. (US 8,712,218 Bl; issued
Apr. 29, 2014). Final Act. 13-14.
The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 13, in the alternative under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Trenz and Horvitz et al. (US
7,644,427 Bl; published Jan. 5, 2010). Final Act. 14—15.
The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Trenz and Chen et al. (US 2014/0089953 Al;
published Mar. 27, 2014). Final Act. 15.
The Examiner rejects claims 5, 8—12, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Trenz and Fishman. Final Act. 8—13.
The Examiner rejects claims 9 and 10 in the alternative under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Trenz, Fishman, and Barton.
Final Act. 19—20.
4
Appeal 2017-005070
Application 13/831,071
The Examiner rejects claims 11 and 17, in the alternative, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Trenz, Fishman, and Walter.
Final Act. 16.
The Examiner rejects claims 12 and 18, in the alternative, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Trenz, Fishman, and Anzures.
Final Act. 17—18.
ANAFYSIS
Claims 1—4, 6, 7, 13 16, and 19—21
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the Examiner finds the
use in Trenz of community preferences (e.g., a movie included in the
majority of profiles stored in a network community), and of a media
guidance application monitoring user activity such as media a user accesses,
discloses first and second marketing area viewing habits modules being
configured to determine viewing habits by querying set top boxes in the first
and second geographic marketing areas for content selected for viewing by
the one or more users in the first and second geographic marketing area.
Final Act. 5 (citing Trenz || 159, 163, Figs. 13, 14); Adv. Act.2 2; Ans. 7
(further citing Trenz || 27, 28, 38, 39, 160, 161).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because rather than “querying
set top boxes for content selected for viewing by users in first and second
geographic areas ....[,] Trenz merely teaches user ‘preference profiles’
which may include user-indicated likes/dislikes associated with particular
media assets.” App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 2-4.
2 All references to “Adv. Act.” are to the Advisory Action mailed Feb. 12,
2016.
5
Appeal 2017-005070
Application 13/831,071
The Examiner finds that the media guidance application of Trenz
“may allow monitoring user(s) activity to determine various user
preferences.” Ans. 5. However, Trenz merely monitors media user
accesses to automatically compile user profile information. Trenz 139.
While the profile information from such monitoring may reflect the user’s
viewing habits, we agree with Appellant that such monitoring falls short of
querying set top boxes for content selected for viewing by at least one or
more users in a first geographic marketing area and one or more users in a
second geographic marketing area. See App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 4.
Specifically, the Examiner does not show that the monitoring in Trenz
is done, or that the monitoring results (i.e., the “content selected for
viewing”) are provided, in response to a query. Rather, the media guidance
application monitoring or monitoring results communications in Trenz could
be automatic and self-reported rather than in response to a query. Therefore,
we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s findings do not show that
Trenz discloses the first and second marketing area viewing habits module
recitations of claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claim 1, and claims 3, 6, 7, 14—16, 20, and 21, which contain
similar recitations. The Examiner does not show that Barton, Anzures,
Fishman,3 or Walter cure the noted deficiency of Trenz. Therefore, we also
3 The Examiner’s cites to Fishman in rejecting, in the alternative, claims 14
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fishman, Trenz,
and Walter. Final Act. 16—17. However, the Examiner’s findings with
respect to Fishman are simply that “Fishman et al. and Trenz et al. discloses
6
Appeal 2017-005070
Application 13/831,071
do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 2—4, 7,
13-16, and 19-21.
Claims 5, 8—12, 17, and 18
In rejecting claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner finds
Fishman renders obvious identifying content titles currently being viewed by
all set top boxes in a first area, determining the number of viewers in the
first area of each content title, and comparing the number of viewers in the
first area of each content title to a threshold value, and outputting matched
content titles. Final Act. 8—9 (citing, e.g., Fishman || 15, 17, 33, 35, 36,
Fig. 2). The Examiner relies on Trenz, rather than Fishman, to render
obvious sending the matched content titles to a user associated with a first
geographic marketing area for display on a mobile communication device.
Final Act. 10 (citing Trenz || 53, 128, Fig. 8); see also Ans. 19 (citing Trenz
129, 131, 137, Figs. 6, 11, and 12). The Examiner also relies on Trenz to
render obvious the first area being a geographic marketing area. Final Act.
10 (citing Trenz 1162, Fig. 13); Adv. Act. 2 (citing Trenz Figs. 6, 9); Ans.
17-18.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Trenz “merely
teaches that users may communicate through an instant message text box,
and if the receiving user is not logged into the system, the chat message may
everything claimed as applied above (see claims 1 and 6).” Id. at 17.
However, the Examiner does not rely on Fishman with respect to
independent claims 1 and 6. Id. at 4—7; Adv. Act. 2 (Feb. 12, 2016). In the
event of further prosecution, we recommend the Examiner ascertain and set
forth findings as to whether Fishman, particularly paragraph 35 discussed
herein, cures the noted deficiency of Trenz.
7
Appeal 2017-005070
Application 13/831,071
be provided as a text message to the user’s mobile device.” App. Br. 16.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner’s additional citations to Trenz
relate to listing “content that the [viewing] user and one other particular
community member (who was actively selected by the user, regardless of
geographic marketing areas) may share an interest in.” Reply Br. 6.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because Trenz renders
obvious sending information such as a list of media (e.g., media liked by the
user and another community member) to a user’s mobile communication
device. See Ans. 19 (citing, e.g., Trenz 1131, Figs. 6, 11). The Examiner’s
findings show that Fishman communicates a customized playlist—based on
content utilization information collected from client devices of an entire
community of users—to a client device of a target user. See Final Act. 8—9
(citing, e.g., Fishman 135); Adv. Act. 2 (citing, e.g., Fishman 139). We
agree with the Examiner that Fishman’s communication of a customized
playlist and the sending in Trenz of a list of media to a user’s mobile
communication device would have rendered obvious to an artisan of
ordinary skill sending the matched content titles to a user for display on a
mobile communication device, as recited in claim 5.
Appellant further argues “Trenz merely show[s] that a user’s profile
information, as well as that of other users within the system . . . may include
location information.” App. Br. 17. Appellant contends, “[t]hese are not
separate ‘geographic marketing areas’ as claimed.” Id.', see also Reply Br.
5—6. However, Appellant does not persuasively distinguish the claimed
geographic marketing areas from the location information of Trenz (e.g.,
“California”). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination
of Fishman and Trenz renders obvious the use of geographic marketing
8
Appeal 2017-005070
Application 13/831,071
areas as part of the identification, determination, comparison, and sending
recitations of claim 5.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 5, and claims 8—12, 17, and 18, which Appellant does not argue
separately.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 6, 7, 13—16,
and 19-21.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 5, 8—12, 17, and
18.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9