CENTURYLINK INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 3, 2020

2019002581 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2020)

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.
13/631,110 09/28/2012 Steven M. Casey CLC-165/US 7351
174132 7590 11/03/2020
Lumen Patent Firm
CenturyLink Intellectual Property LLC
438 Cambridge Ave., Suite 225
Palo Alto, CA 94306
EXAMINER
OCAK, ADIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/03/2020 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):
kathleen.mcinnish@centurylink.com
ptomail@lumenpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN M. CASEY, FELIPE CASTRO,
RONNIE S. DHALIWAL, and HONG HEE CHOI
Appeal 2019-002581
Application 13/631,110
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EVANS, LARRY J. HUME, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–4, 6–14, and 17–19. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as CenturyLink Intellectual
Property LLC. Appeal Brief 3, filed August 27, 2019 (Appeal Br.).
Appeal 2019-002581
Application 13/631,110

2
BACKGROUND
This patent application concerns “automatically generating
multimedia channels for streaming and/or broadcasting, said channels being
driven by social media, news events, and Internet searches, etc.”
Specification ¶ 1, filed September 28, 2012 (Spec.). Claim 1 illustrates the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for compiling video content for presentation in
dynamic automated content channels to a user, the method
comprising:
accessing, at a head-end of a telecommunications system,
trend data from a trend database, wherein the trend data
represents contemporary social media, Internet searches, or news
events;
generating, at the head-end, keywords based on the trend
data;
storing, at the head-end, the generated keywords in a
keyword database;
searching, at the head-end, at least one content catalog of
at least one content library for video content that is relevant to
the generated keywords;
generating, at the head-end, a list of relevant video content
based on the search of the at least one content catalog;
generating, at the head-end, at least one dynamic
automated on-demand channel for streaming the relevant video
content, based on the list of relevant video content, wherein the
head-end is configured to display a selection screen on the at
least one dynamic automated on-demand channel from which the
user is enabled to select a program of the relevant video content
for streaming;
generating, at the head-end, at least one dynamic
automated broadcast channel that is tailored to the user, which
comprises a consolidated broadcast channel, associated with the
relevant video content based on the at least one content catalog,
Appeal 2019-002581
Application 13/631,110

3
wherein the head-end is configured to generate, without user
input, a programming schedule, which is tailored to the user, of
the relevant video content based on predetermined criteria and to
broadcast the relevant video content to the user on the
consolidated broadcast channel based on the programming
schedule generated without user input, wherein the relevant
video content is associated with the trend data representing at
least one of contemporary social media, Internet searches, or
news events, wherein the relevant video content includes at least
one of social media content or Internet content, wherein the
relevant video content, associated with the trend data
representing at least one of contemporary social media, Internet
searches, or news events, is compiled into the consolidated
broadcast channel that is tailored to the user based on the
programming schedule tailored to the user and generated without
user input, wherein the predetermined criteria include at least one
criterion selected from the group consisting of relevance, user
preference, popularity, length of video content, and broadcaster's
program scheduling policies (the “generating, at the head-end, at
least one dynamic automated broadcast channel” limitation);
formatting, at the head-end, the program of relevant video
content and the broadcast relevant video content for presentation
on at least one user device, wherein the at least one user device
includes at least one of a cable television system, an interactive
television system, a standard television system, a gaming
console, a mobile device, a personal computer, and a tablet
computer; and
providing, at the at least one user device and selectable by
user input, user access to one or more of the at least one dynamic
automated on-demand channel and the at least one dynamic
automated broadcast channel, the dynamic automated on-
demand channel presenting the program of relevant video
content and the dynamic automated broadcast channel presenting
the broadcast relevant video content.
Appeal Br. 27–28.
Appeal 2019-002581
Application 13/631,110

4
REJECTION
Claims 35 U.S.C. § References
1–4, 6–14, 17–19 103(a) Jordan,2 Sinha,3 Gordon,4 Nyako5
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection and Appellant’s
arguments, and Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. As
consistent with the discussion below, we adopt the Examiner’s reasoning,
findings, and conclusions on pages 2–25 of the Final Office Action mailed
March 8, 2018 (Final Act.), and pages 3–12 of the Examiner’s Answer
mailed December 13, 2018 (Ans.). We address Appellant’s arguments in
turn.
Appellant contends that the Examiner has not shown that the
combination of Jordan, Sinha, Gordon, and Nyako teaches or suggests the
“generating, at the head-end, at least one dynamic automated broadcast
channel” limitation recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 20–24. Appellant
focuses on Nyako and argues that Nyako does not teach or suggest the
“video content” recited in this limitation, as Nyako allegedly aggregates only
information about video content, not the video content itself. Reply Brief 6–
7, filed February 13, 2019 (Reply Br.). Relatedly, Appellant contends that
Nyako does not teach or suggest consolidating video content into a broadcast
channel as required by this limitation because Nyako’s “virtual channels are
actually program guides with information about the content and the video

2 Jordan et al. (US 2011/0289534 A1; November 24, 2011).
3 Sinha (US 2012/0016948 A1; January 19, 2012).
4 Gordon et al. (US 2002/0077880 A1; June 20, 2002).
5 Nyako et al. (US 2007/0074245 A1; March 29, 2007).
Appeal 2019-002581
Application 13/631,110

5
content itself does not actually appear on the virtual channel.” Appeal Br.
23. Finally, Appellant asserts that Nyako’s virtual channels are not the
recited “broadcast channels” because Nyako “clearly distinguishes the
virtual channels . . . from broadcast channels.” Appeal Br. 24.
Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. The
Examiner found that Jordan teaches the recited video content and broadcast
channel. See, e.g., Ans. 4 (“It is also noted that the teaching of ‘broadcast
channel’ is already taught in Jordan reference (paragraph 0032, figure 2) as
indicated on page 5 of the final rejection.”), 9 (“In response, the Examiner
first points out that it is the first reference (Jordon) in the rejection that
teaches ‘video content.’”); see also Final Act. 4–6 (mapping Jordan to claim
1). Appellant has not expressly contested these findings; in fact, Appellant
seems to concede that Jordan teaches video content. See Reply Br. 7
(arguing that “there is no indication that [Jordan’s] content (which may
include video content) may be integrated into a consolidated broadcast
channel as recited by pending claim 1”(emphasis added)).
The Examiner found that Nyako discloses the concept of virtual
television channels that contain programs and other content that satisfy user
preferences. See, e.g., Final Act. 9–10 (citing Nyako ¶¶ 4, 22, 25, 33, Figs. 2,
4A, Abstract); see also Ans. 4 (making similar findings). Although
Appellant contends that Nyako discloses only a program guide, one of skill
in the art would understand Nyako to disclose both a program guide and the
concept of virtual channels that consist of tailored content. See, e.g., Nyako
¶ 25 (“A virtual channel contains a listing of programs and other content that
satisfy various preferences set by a user. Thus, the virtual channel contains
programs and other content that the user would most likely want to access at
Appeal 2019-002581
Application 13/631,110

6
a given time. The virtual channel may aggregate programs from multiple
different channels (e.g., broadcast channels, video on demand (VoD), IPTV
channels, and the like).” (emphasis added)). The Examiner concluded that
the disputed limitation would have been obvious in light of the combined
teachings of Jordan and Nyako, as well as the teachings of Sinha and
Gordon. See, e.g., Final Act. 4–10. Appellant’s arguments against Nyako
individually have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in this regard.
See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). (“[O]ne cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references.”).
As noted above, Appellant asserts that “there is no indication that
[Jordan’s] content (which may include video content) may be integrated into
a consolidated broadcast channel as recited by pending claim 1.” Reply Br.
7. We disagree. Jordan teaches that the disclosed invention “allows a host
site to package and bulk deliver content information and content itself to
user platforms, wherein the content information contains only the content
listings and/or program guide for the channel line-up for which the user has
indicated a use or preference.” Jordan ¶ 37 (emphasis added). Thus, contrary
to Appellant’s argument, Jordan indicates that the disclosed “content (which
may include video content) may be integrated into a consolidated broadcast
channel.” In any event, “it is not necessary that the inventions of” Jordan and
Nyako “be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under
review.” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Rather, the
relevant questions is “whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious
by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859
(Fed.Cir.1985) (en banc). That is the case here.
Appeal 2019-002581
Application 13/631,110

7
Appellant also argues that Sinha does not teach or suggest that the
recited video content is “associated with the trend data representing at least
one of contemporary social media, Internet searches, or news events” as
recited in the “generating, at the head-end, at least one dynamic automated
broadcast channel” limitation. See Appeal Br. 25–26. Appellant does not
dispute that Sinha discloses monitoring activity on a variety of internet sites
to detect spikes in keyword usage (that is, trends) but contends that Sinha
does not teach associating the monitored activity with video content. See
Appeal Br. 25. Appellant also contends that even if Sinha did teach
associating this activity with video content, the “video content could not be
integrated with Nyako because . . . Nyako does not disclose a consolidated
broadcast channel comprising consolidated video content.” Appeal Br. 25.
Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. The
Examiner found that Jordan teaches the recited video content and concluded
that the combination of Jordan’s and Sinah’s teachings would have made the
disputed limitation obvious. See, e.g., Final Act. 4–7; Ans. 10–11.
Appellant’s argument that Sinha alone does not teach or suggest the disputed
limitation therefore has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. See Keller,
642 F.2d at 426. As for Appellant’s argument that Nyako does not teach or
suggest the recited video content and broadcast channel, as discussed above,
the Examiner found that Jordan discloses these elements. See, e.g., Ans. 4, 9;
Final Act. 4–6. We thus see no merit in this argument.
For at least the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1. Because Appellant does not present separate, persuasive arguments
about claims 2–4, 6–14, and 17–19, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of these claims.
Appeal 2019-002581
Application 13/631,110

8
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–14,
17–19 103(a)
Jordan, Sinha, Gordon,
Nyako
1–4, 6–14,
17–19

No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED