Ex Parte Lee et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 201613340033 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/340,033 12/29/2011 20991 7590 03/28/2016 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. PA TENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION CA I LAI I Al09 2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Sean S. Lee 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-211030 9212 EXAMINER SALCE, JASON P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2421 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2016 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 Ex parte SEAN S. LEE, KURIACOSE JOSEPH, and SCOTT D. CASAVANT Appeal2014-006195 Application 13/340,033 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN A. EV ANS, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-006195 Application 13/340,033 Appellant1 seeks our review2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's final rejection of Claims 1-14 and 16-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to techniques for determining unauthorized use of a set top box. The techniques involve receiving and comparing weather conditions in a geographic area. See Abstract. Claims 1, 10, and 13 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized and some formatting added: 1. A method comprising: receiving a profile of weather conditions in a geographic area at a set top box based on weather conditions in the geographic area compiled from a plurality of set top boxes in the geographical area; 1 The Appeal Brief identifies DirecTV Group, Inc., as the Real Party in Interest. Br. 2. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed December 16, 2013, "App. Br."), the Reply Brief (filed April 28, 2014, Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed February 26, 2014, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed July 15, 2013, "Final Act."), and the Specification (filed December 29, 2011, "Spec.") for their respective details. 2 Appeal2014-006195 Application 13/340,033 generating a weather log at the set top box; comparing the profile to the weather log; and disabling the set top box from receiving signals in response to comparing. References and Re} ections The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows: Borislow Whitley US 2011/0004893 Al US 2012/0110614 Al Jan. 6, 2011 May 3, 2012 Claims 1-14 and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Whitley and Borislow.3 App. Br. 2-9. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejection of Claims 1-14 and 16-19 in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants' conclusions. We discuss the claims seriatim, according to Appellants principle Brief. INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1 Profile of weather conditions ... based on weather conditions ... compiled from a plurality of set top boxes. Appellants contend the cited art fails to teach "receiving a profile of weather conditions in a geographic area at a set top box based on weather 3 Claim 15 is allowable, but is objected to as dependent upon a rejected base claim. Final Act. 9. 3 Appeal2014-006195 Application 13/340,033 conditions in the geographic area compiled from a plurality of set top boxes in the geographical area," as recited in Claim 1. App. Br. 5. The Examiner finds Whitley teaches receiving a weather profile at a set-top box, but Whitley fails to teach the weather profile is compiled from a plurality of set-top boxes, as claimed. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds Borislow teaches receiving a profile of weather conditions (signal strengths) at a set-top box compiled from a plurality of set-top boxes in a geographical region. Id (citing Borislow, Fig. 3b ). Appellants contend that Borislow also fails to teach the disputed limitation. App. Br. 6. According to Appellants, Borislow determines distances between set-top boxes in a geographical area and compares these distances to predetermined, authorized distances. Moreover, Appellants argue, Borislow does not relate to weather conditions or profiles. Id. The Examiner does not sufficiently defend the finding of the Final Action. Rather, the Answer finds Borislow teaches that each set-top box receives signal strengths and cites Appellants' Specification to find signal strengths correspond to weather information. Ans. 4 (citing Spec., i-f 31 ). The set-top boxes compile the signal strengths into distance measurements. Thus, the Examiner finds, distances are based on signal strengths (i.e., weather information). Id. We agree with Appellants that the Final Action fails to make a prima facie case of obviousness. Contrary to the Examiner's finding, Borislow, Fig. 3b provides no teaching related to weather. Rather, Borislow relates signal strengths to locations ("monitoring the corresponding signal 4 Appeal2014-006195 Application 13/340,033 strength(s) of those first signal(s), and identifying a location of the device"). Borislow, Fig. 3a; see Borislow, i-f 67. The Examiner explicitly cites Appellants' Specification for the suggestion that signal strengths are related to weather. See Ans. 4 (citing Spec., i-f 31 ). It is important not to "fall victim to the insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the inventor taught is used against its teacher." In re Dembiczak 175 F.3d 994, 999 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citation and quotations omitted). Moreover, the Examiner's relating signal strengths to weather is merely conclusory. "[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Therefore, we decline to sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-9 for similar reasons. CLAIMS 10-12 Generating a profile of the signal strengths in a geographic area; communicating the profile to a first set top box. The Examiner finds Whitley discloses "generating a profile of signal strengths in a geographic area" and "communicating the profile to a first set top box, as recited in independent Claim 10. Final Act. 6 (citing Whitley, i-fi-1 19, 41 ). Appellants disagree and argue Whitley discloses weather condition thresholds in paragraph 19 and argue Whitley, paragraph 41 compares a signal strength to signal quality threshold. Appellants contend there is no disclosure of a signal strength profile or of its communication to a set-top 5 Appeal2014-006195 Application 13/340,033 box. App. Br. 11. Whitley discloses: For example, but not limited to, a known weather threshold 156 may correlate to anticipated degraded reception of the OT A media content signal 110. Accordingly, automatic presentation of one or more of the reports 150, 152 and/or 154 will notify the customer of a potential problem in receiving the OT A media content signal 110. Whitley, i-f 19. Whitley further discloses: In some embodiments, the weather condition thresholds 156 may be defined by the customer. The customer may appreciate that a coming storm may degrade signal reception in the near future. Accordingly, the customer may plan on implementing a remedial action, such as by knocking snow off of the receiving antenna 142, if one or more of the reports 150, 152 and/or 154 are presented. Alternatively, or additionally, the customer may choose to watch media content from an alternative source, such as the digital video recorder DVR 140 or another media device; such a digital video recorder (DVR) device (not shown). Whitley, i-f 20. Absent further explanation from the Examiner, we fail to see how the anticipated weather, or a customer's plans to knock snow off of an antenna, relate to a signal strength profile. Therefore, we decline to sustain the rejection of independent Claim 10 or of dependent Claims 11 and 12. CLAIMS 13, 14, 16-19 Independent Claim 13 recites limitations commensurate in scope with Claim 1. In view of our foregoing discussion, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claim 13 or of dependent Claims 14 and 16-19. 6 Appeal2014-006195 Application 13/340,033 DECISION The rejection of Claims 1-14 and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation