Christopher Stone et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 2, 2020

13804849 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 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.
13/804,849 03/14/2013 Christopher Stone 007412.02195 4120
71867 7590 01/02/2020
BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD
ATTORNEYS FOR CLIENT NUMBER 007412
1100 13th STREET, N.W.
SUITE 1200
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-4051
EXAMINER
ABOU EL SEOUD, MOHAMED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/02/2020 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):
PTO-71867@bannerwitcoff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER STONE, FRANCES BEVAN,
and MICHAEL REKSTAD
____________

Appeal 2018-002791
Application 13/804,849
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, BETH Z. SHAW,
and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–4, 6, 22–24, 27–29, 31, 32, and 34–38. Claims 5,
7–21, 25, 26, 30, and 33 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the
pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant states that it believes the real party in interest is
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2018-002791
Application 13/804,849

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to encoded
Multiple User Interface (UI) states (for example, on-screen TV program
guides) containing images of UI states and metadata associating an encoded
UI state with other navigationally related encoded UI states, with portions of
encoded UI states communicated to user devices. (Abstr.; Spec. ¶ 1.)
Independent claims 1, 23, and 38, reproduced below, are illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
generating, by a computing system, a first plurality of
images, each image corresponding to a state of a first plurality
of states of a user interface;
communicating, by the computing system, data
comprising the first plurality of images and metadata
associating each image of the first plurality of images with a
state of the first plurality of states;
receiving an indication of a request, from a user device,
for a first state of the first plurality of states, wherein the
indication of the request comprises at least a portion of the
metadata;
in response to the indication of the request for the first
state of the first plurality of states, generating, by the computing
system, a second plurality of images, each image of the second
plurality of images corresponding to a state of a second
plurality of states; and
communicating, by the computing system, data
comprising at least one of the second plurality of images.

23. A method, comprising:
receiving, by a computing system, an indication that a
first state of a user interface has expired, wherein the first state
of the user interface is associated with a user device;
Appeal 2018-002791
Application 13/804,849

3

transmitting, to the user device and in response to
receiving the indication that the first state of the user interface
has expired, data corresponding to a second state of the user
interface; and
responsive to receiving the indication that the first state
of the user interface has expired and prior to receiving an
indication that the user device requested one or more states of
the user interface that are navigationally related to the second
state, generating one or more images or videos, wherein each of
the one or more images or videos corresponds to a state of the
user interface that is navigationally related to the second state.

38. A method, comprising:
transmitting, by a first computing device and to a second
computing device, a first user interface state;
transmitting, by the first computing device and to a third
computing device, a request for a first plurality of user interface
states, wherein each state of the first plurality of user interface
states is navigationally related to the first user interface state;
determining, by the first computing device, that the first
user interface state has expired;
in response to determining that the first user interface
state has expired, transmitting, by the first computing device
and to the second computing device, a second user interface
state of the first plurality of user interface states; and
in response to determining that the first user interface
state has expired, transmitting, by the first computing device
and to the third computing device, a request for a second
plurality of user interface states, wherein each user interface
state of the second plurality of user interface states is
navigationally related to the second user interface state.
(Appeal Br. 13, 14, 16–17 (Appendix A).)

Appeal 2018-002791
Application 13/804,849

4

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1–4, 6, 22, 31, 35, and 37 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ludvig et al. (US 7,091,968 B1,
issued Aug. 15, 2006) and Britto et al. (US 8,832,184 B1, issued Sept. 9,
2014). (Final Act. 2–11.)
The Examiner rejected claims 23, 24, 27, and 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ludvig and Allegrezza et al.
(US 8,650,601 B2, issued Feb. 11, 2014). (Final Act. 11–17.)
The Examiner rejected claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ludvig, Allegrezza, and Wasserman (US 7,814,512 B2,
issued Oct. 12, 2010). (Final Act. 17–18.)
The Examiner rejected claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ludvig, Britto, and Wasserman. (Final Act. 18–19.)
The Examiner rejected claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ludvig, Britto, and Allegrezza. (Final Act. 19–20.)
The Examiner rejected claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ludvig, Britto, and Babic (US 2011/0296474 A1, pub.
Dec. 1, 2011). (Final Act. 20–22.)
The Examiner rejected claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ludvig, Babic, and Allegrezza. (Final Act. 22–25.)
Appeal 2018-002791
Application 13/804,849

5

ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellant’s arguments present the following issues:2
Issue One: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Ludvig and Britto would have taught or suggested the limitations of
independent claim 1. (Appeal Br. 5–8.)
Issue Two: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Ludvig and Allegrezza would have taught or suggested the limitations of
independent claim 23. (Appeal Br. 8–9.)
Issue Three: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Ludvig, Babic, and Allegrezza would have taught or suggested the
limitations of independent claim 38. (Appeal Br. 10–11.)
ANALYSIS
Issue One
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Ludvig
of delivering multiple interactive program guides, covering, for example,
hundreds of channels over a 24-hour period, which are collectively broadcast
to all viewers in one or more multiplexed streams, in which an individual
program guide is selected for decoding and display in response to a unique
program identification code generated by viewer control. (Final Act. 2–5;
Ludvig Abstr., Figs. 5A, 5B, 5C, 6, 5:63–65, 7:57–65, 8:11–15.) The
Examiner further relies on the disclosure in Britto of reducing the response

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the findings of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 31, 2017) (“Appeal Br.”);
the Reply Brief (filed Jan. 22, 2018) (“Reply Br.”); the Final Office Action
(mailed Aug. 4, 2016) (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed
Nov. 22, 2017) (“Ans.”) for the respective details.
Appeal 2018-002791
Application 13/804,849

6

delay of a state-based client-server application using a server-side cache to
pre-fetch and store data that may follow a current state of the application.
(Final Act. 5–6; Britto Abstr., 4:33–40, claim 2.)
Appellant notes that the Examiner finds “Ludvig do[es] not explicitly
teach that the second plurality of images was generated in response to the
request for the first state of the first plurality of states.” (Appeal Br. 6, citing
Final Act. 5.) Appellant further argues the Examiner errs in finding the
combination of Britto with Ludvig teaches or suggests this requirement,
because:
In Ludvig, all of the available IPG pages are generated and
encoded. All of the encoded sequences are then transmitted to
the subscriber equipment. Thus, Ludvig would not be modified
to generate further sequences based on a data request, as the
Office appears to suggest. In Ludvig, all of the available IPG
pages have already been transmitted, and no further data
request is necessary.
Britto prefetches data to avoid a delay caused by a server
trip. However, in Ludvig, when a subscriber changes pages in
the IPG, no server trip is needed as the data has already been
transmitted to the subscriber equipment. The system of Ludvig
does not need to generate a new IPG page when a new page of
the guide is accessed. Rather, the subscriber equipment in
Ludvig simply decodes a different PID from the received data.
The Office’s proposed combination would not result in a
“reduction of delay between a user action and an associated
update of a user interface,” as the Office suggests, because the
proposed combination would actually increase the amount of
transmissions, thus increasing the number of delays, for
updating the user interface in Ludvig.
(Appeal Br. 6–7.)
In supporting the rejection, the Examiner finds that the combination is
motivated because it provides a “reduction of delay between a user action
Appeal 2018-002791
Application 13/804,849

7

and an associated update of a user interface,” and “a more reliable storage
system that do[es] not overload or depend on the subscriber device which
could affect the user experience. . . .” (Final Act. 6; Ans. 4.) However, as
stated by Appellant as quoted above, the proposed combination would
increase delay. (Appeal Br. 7.) In addition, as described above, the program
guides of Ludvig are constantly being streamed to the user device, and
selectively decoded based on the program identification code. (Ludvig
Abstr. 5:63–65, 7:57–65, 8:11–15.) Therefore, the issue of storage system
reliability and capacity is not a motivating factor when considering any
modification of Ludvig. (Appeal Br. 6.)
The Examiner also relies on the disclosure in Ludvig of a provision
for multiple transport streams to accommodate a large number of program
guides, finding in light of that disclosure “it is not a must to be all
downloaded to the user system.” (Ans. 3, citing Ludvig 11:1–21.)
However, the Examiner does not explain the significance of this observation
and we are not persuaded it refutes Appellant’s argument that all program
guides are transmitted at once, eliminating the motivation to combine
Ludvig with Britto.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not made
out a prima facie case of obviousness, and we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of independent claim 1 as obvious over Ludvig and
Britto. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
claims 2–4, 6, 22, 31, 35, and 37 over Ludvig and Britto, of claim 32 over
Ludvig, Britto, and Wasserman, of claim 34 over Ludvig, Britto, and
Allegrezza, and of claim 36 over Ludvig, Britto, and Babic, which claims
Appeal 2018-002791
Application 13/804,849

8

depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1, and which additional references
(Wasserman, Allegrezza, and Babic) are not relied on for the limitations of
claim 1.
Issue Two
In rejecting claim 23, the Examiner relies on the above described
disclosures in Ludvig, and also the disclosure in Allegrezza of a video on
demand management system that moves higher demand content to storage
devices near to subscribers, and moves content further away after the content
has aged for a predetermined time. (Final Act. 12–14; Allegrezza Abstr.,
2:29–43.)
Appellant notes the Examiner finds Ludvig does not explicitly teach
the claim 23 requirement of “receiving . . . an indication that a first state of a
user interface has expired,” or “transmitting . . . in response . . . data
corresponding to a second state of the user interface,” and argues the
Examiner errs in finding Allegrezza in combination with Ludvig satisfies
those requirements. (Appeal Br. 8, citing Final Act. 12.) We agree with
Appellant. Although Allegrezza generally discloses the idea of relocating
video content based on monitoring its “aging,” the Examiner does not
sufficiently explain how the combination teaches or suggests the specific
claim requirements at issue. (See Ans. 5.)
Accordingly, the Examiner has not made out a prima facie case of
obviousness, and we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 23 as obvious over Ludvig and Allegrezza.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
claims 24, 27, and 29 over Ludvig and Allegrezza, and of claim 28 over
Ludvig, Allegrezza, and Wasserman, which claims depend, directly or
Appeal 2018-002791
Application 13/804,849

9

indirectly, from claim 23, and which additional reference (Wasserman) is
not relied on for the limitations of claim 23.
Issue Three
In rejecting claim 38, the Examiner relies on the above described
disclosures in Ludvig and Allegrezza, and also the disclosure in Babic of
facilitating video workflow using a “content delivery network” configured in
a hierarchy so that a client device can successively request data from an edge
cache, a parent cache, or an origin content server, depending on availability.
(Final Act. 22–25; Babic Abstr., ¶ 47.)
Appellant argues the Examiner errs because one of ordinary skill in
the art would not have combined Babic with Ludvig, for the same reasons as
discussed above in regard to the combination of Ludvig with Britto — the
system of Ludvig generates and encodes all available program guides, and
therefore there would be no need for the hierarchical caching techniques of
Babic. (Appeal Br. 11.) We agree with Appellant for the same reasons as
discussed above.
Accordingly, the Examiner has not made out a prima facie case of
obviousness, and we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 38 as obvious over Ludvig, Babic, and Allegrezza.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6, 22, 31,
35, 37
103 Ludvig, Britto 1–4, 6, 22, 31,
35, 37
23, 24, 27, 29 103 Ludvig, Allegrezza 23, 24, 27, 29
Appeal 2018-002791
Application 13/804,849

10

REVERSED

28 103 Ludvig, Allegrezza,
Wasserman
28
32 103 Ludvig, Britto,
Wasserman
32
34 103 Ludvig, Britto,
Allegrezza
34
36 103 Ludvig, Britto,
Babic
36
38 103 Ludvig, Babic,
Allegrezza
38
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6, 22–24,
27–29, 31, 32,
34–38