Google LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 28, 2021

2020002023 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 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.
16/027,026 07/03/2018 Jeffrey Arthur Kardatzke 0715150.127-US5 7836
104433 7590 05/28/2021
Byrne Poh LLP/Google LLC
11 Broadway Ste 760
New York, NY 10004
EXAMINER
ALCON, FERNANDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/28/2021 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):
info@byrnepoh.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JEFFREY ARTHUR KARDATZKE
____________________

Appeal 2020-002023
Application 16/027,0261
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MARC S. HOFF, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s invention is a method for providing media guidance with
a plurality of media sources. A plurality of media content listings are stored.
Each media content item is provided by a content source. The method
includes determining, for each media content listing, whether an alternate

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant states that the real party in interest is Google LLC.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-002023
Application 16/027,026

2
source for providing a media content item is available, the alternate source
being different from the content source. A subset of the plurality of media
content listings is presented to the user, wherein a selectable alternate source
indicator is presented within the corresponding media content listing, in
response to a determination that the media content item is available from the
alternate source. Spec. ¶ 6.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method for providing media guidance with a plurality
of media sources, the method comprising:
receiving, using a hardware processor, at least one media
content listing for presenting to a user, wherein each of the at
least one media content listing is associated with one or more
media content sources;
transmitting, to an alternate source of media content of
one or more alternate sources of media content, a request as to
whether the alternate source of media content can provide a
media content item corresponding to one or more of the at least
one media content listing;
receiving, from the alternate source of media content, a
response to the request, wherein the response contains an
indication of whether the alternate source of media content can
provide the media content item;
determining, based on the indication, an availability of
the media content item from the one or more alternate sources
of media content, wherein each of the one or more alternate
sources of media content is different than the one or more
media content sources;
causing a plurality of media content listings to be
presented to the user, wherein the plurality of media content
listings comprises the at least one media content listing;
concurrently with causing the plurality of media content
listings to be presented, causing an alternate source indicator to
be presented to the user with at least one of the plurality of
Appeal 2020-002023
Application 16/027,026

3
media content listings in response to determining that the
corresponding media content item is available from the one or
more alternate sources of media content; and
causing the media content item to be presented in
response to receiving a selection of the alternate source
indicator.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Iki et al. US 7,240,356 B2 July 3, 2007
Merzon et al. US 2013/0114940 A1 May 9, 2013

Claims 1–9, 11–14, and 16–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Merzon.
Claims 10, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Merzon and Iki.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed Sept. 19, 2019) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,”
mailed Oct. 18, 2019) for their respective details.
ISSUE
Does Merzon teach presenting an alternate source indicator to a user
in response to determining that the corresponding media content item is
available from one or more alternate sources of media content?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–9, 11–14, and 16–19
Representative claim 1 recites, in pertinent part,
receiving at least one media content listing, each of which is
associated with one or more media content sources;

determining an availability of a media content item from one or
more alternate sources of media content, wherein each of the
Appeal 2020-002023
Application 16/027,026

4
one or more alternate sources of media content is different than
the one or more media content sources;

causing a plurality of media content listings to be presented to
the user; and

causing an alternate source indicator to be presented to the user
with at least one of the plurality of media content listings, in
response to determining that the corresponding media content
item is available from the one or more alternate sources of
media content.

Appellant argues that designator 706 taught in Merzon does not
correspond to the claimed alternate source indicator. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant
contends that Merzon does not teach a designator presented in response to
determining that the corresponding media content item is available from one
or more alternate sources of media content. Id. Appellant argues that
Merzon’s designator is displayed “regardless of whether content is available
from multiple sources.” Id. (emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Merzon teaches that
designator 706 “may indicate that the designated show is available to watch
now.” Merzon ¶ 53. Merzon teaches that “[i]n other embodiments, such as
when the content is available from multiple sources, the user selection [of
the designator] may cause the display of a selectable list of sources for the
show.” Id.
Appellant’s invention discloses a media guidance application that
“can determine whether the media content item associated with at least one
of the media listings is also available for playback from an alternate source.”
Spec. ¶ 30. Appellant’s Specification gives examples of possible alternate
sources: “a digital video recorder (DVR), an over-the-top (OTT) content
Appeal 2020-002023
Application 16/027,026

5
source, a video-on-demand (VOD) content source, and/or any other suitable
source.” Id. Appellant discloses that “[i]n this example, the alternate source
can be a source that is different from the television program source
providing the media listings in a listings grid organized by time and
channel.” Id.
Given Appellant’s definition of “alternate source” as “a source that is
different from the television program source” and one example of an
alternate source being a DVR, we find that Merzon’s teaching that its
designator indicates that the designated show is available to watch now
corresponds to the claimed alternate source indicator. Merzon, after all,
teaches that such a show, having designator 706, “may have been previously
recorded, or may be currently available from a non-linear content source.”
Merzon ¶ 53. Merzon’s “previously recorded” show would be available, for
example, in a storage device such as a DVR, and “non-linear content . . .
may be recorded via download . . . of the content.” Merzon ¶ 49. Both of the
sources described by Merzon are sources “different from the television
program source,” and are thus “alternate sources” within the meaning
expressed in the Specification.
Appellant further argues that Merzon’s designator does not
correspond to the alternate source indicator because Merzon teaches that
“content ‘available’ at a second source is not necessarily ‘available now’ . . .
[but] may be available for recording/viewing at a later date.” Appeal Br. 9;
Merzon ¶ 46. Appellant’s further argument is not persuasive because the
cited portion of Merzon describes Figure 6, which does not include
designator 706, rather than Figure 7, which does feature designator 706.
Appeal 2020-002023
Application 16/027,026

6
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade the Board that the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, or independent claims 11 and 16
which contain analogous limitations. We sustain the Examiner’s § 102(e)
rejection of claims 1–9, 11–14, and 16–19 over Merzon.
Claims 10, 15, and 20
These claims depend from independent claims 1, 11, and 16
respectively. Appellant does not argue for the separate patentability of these
claims. Therefore, we sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 10, 15, and 20
over Merzon and Iki, for the same reasons given supra with respect to the
§ 102(e) rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 16 over Merzon alone.
CONCLUSION
Merzon teaches presenting an alternate source indicator to a user in
response to determining that the corresponding media content item is
available from one or more alternate sources of media content.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis 
Affirmed Reversed
1–9, 11–14,
16–19
102(a) Merzon 1–9, 11–14,
16–19

10, 15, 20 103(a) Merzon, Iki 10, 15, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED