COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 2, 2021

2020002848 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 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.
15/381,227 12/16/2016 Craig Howard Seidel 001441-1026-103 4072
75563 7590 08/02/2021
Haley Guiliano LLP (Xperi)
75 Broad Street
Suite 1000
New York, NY 10004-3226
EXAMINER
SHANG, ANNAN Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2021 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):
DocketRequests@hglaw.com
HGPatentDocket@hglaw.com
haleyguiliano_PAIR@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CRAIG HOWARD SEIDEL and COLEMAN DALE SISSON
Appeal 2020-002848
Application 15/381,227
Technology Center 2400
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and DAVID J.
CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Comcast Cable
Communications Management, LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-002848
Application 15/381,227

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to “multi-channel audio enhancement for
television.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 2–6, 8–16, and 18–25 are pending; claims 2,
10, 18, and 21 are independent. Appeal Br. 15–20. Claims 2 and 10 are
reproduced below for reference (emphases added):

2. An apparatus comprising:
one or more processors; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the
one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
receive a multiplexed signal comprising a video signal, a
plurality of audio signals, and metadata comprising rating
information for each of the plurality of audio signals;
cause display of an audio signal list indicative of the
plurality of audio signals;
receive, from a user device associated with a user, a
selection of an audio signal of the plurality of audio signals; and
cause output of the video signal and the selected audio
signal in response to a determination, based on the rating
information, that the selected audio signal corresponds to an
approved selection.

10. An apparatus comprising:
one or more processors; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the
one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
receive content that comprises a video signal, a
plurality of audio signals, and metadata associated with the
plurality of audio signals, wherein the metadata comprises rating
information;
determine, based on the metadata, a subset of the
plurality of audio signals;
Appeal 2020-002848
Application 15/381,227

3
cause display of an audio signal list indicative of the
subset of the plurality of audio signals;
receive, from a user device associated with a user, a
selection of an audio signal of the subset of the plurality of audio
signals; and
output the video signal and the selected audio
signal.

References and Rejections
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kellner US 2003/0084442 A1 May 1, 2003
Ellis US 7,051,360 B1 May 23, 2006
Koehler US 7,162,532 B2 Jan. 9, 2007
Seidel US 9,560,304 B2 Jan. 31, 2017

Claims 2–6, 9–12, 14–16, and 18–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kellner and Ellis. Non-Final Act. 3–5.
Claims 4, 8, 13, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kellner, Ellis, and Koehler. Non-Final Act. 6–7.
Claims 2–6, 8–16, and 18–25 are rejected on the ground of non-
statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1–20 of Seidel. Non-Final Act. 8.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2020-002848
Application 15/381,227

4
Independent Claim 2
Appellant first argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 is in error,
because “even if [the cited] references were combined, the resulting
combination still would not comprise ‘rating information for each of the
plurality of audio signals,’ as recited in claim 2.” Appeal Br. 5, 6.
Particularly, Appellant contends that, although Kellner discloses different
audio tracks,
even if one assumes that the Kellner “main audio” and the
“alternative audio” tracks are a “plurality of audio signals”, there
is nothing in Kellner to state that there is “metadata comprising
rating information for each of the plurality of audio signals,” as
recited in claim 2. Indeed, having such rating information for
each of the main and alternative audio tracks would seem
superfluous, since the alternative audio track is already
designated to be the “child-friendly” one.
Appeal Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 6.
We are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error. We note
Appellant has not patentably distinguished Kellner’s “child-friendly”
designation from the claimed rating. Contra Appeal Br. 7. Separately,
claim 2 recites “comprising rating information for each of the plurality of
audio signals,” but it does not specify that the signals have different ratings.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Kellner’s V-chip rating is a
rating “for each of the plurality of audio signals,” because Kellner’s program
rating would be a rating for each audio channel included in a given program.
See Ans. 4; Kellner ¶ 7 (“television programs containing alternative audio
signals), ¶ 23 (“The V-Chip (when activated) checks the rating of the
program being received.”). Thus, we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance
on Kellner.
Appeal 2020-002848
Application 15/381,227

5
Appellant further argues the Examiner’s rejection is in error, because
“the combination would not make a ‘determination, based on the rating
information, that the selected audio signal corresponds to an approved
selection.’ Indeed, the combination does not approve or disapprove of a
selected audio signal - it simply outputs the selected audio track.” Appeal
Br. 8. Appellant argues that, for Kellner in combination with Ellis’s
program guide display screen, “there still would be no ‘determination, based
on the rating information, that the selected audio signal corresponds to an
approved selection,’” as “[i]nstead, the user’s selection is never subject to
approval by the system, and the child friendly audio track is simply output
based on the setting of the electronic latch.” Reply Br. 9; Ellis Fig. 10.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (internal citations omitted).
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us the combined teachings of the
Kellner and Ellis would fail to suggest the claimed invention to those of
ordinary skill in the art.
Kellner, as cited by the Examiner, discloses “a composite video signal
received from a broadcaster that includes a video channel and a main audio
channel which represent standard video and audio programs, and a
secondary audio channel that carries an alternative audio track.” Kellner
¶ 11; Non-Final Act. 3. Kellner further teaches the system can block
Appeal 2020-002848
Application 15/381,227

6
composite signals based on a rating (Kellner ¶ 23) and the system can be set
to play the secondary audio channels, which will have age appropriate
content (Kellner ¶¶ 29, 37). See Ans. 4. Ellis, as cited by the Examiner,
teaches “[p]rogram guide display screens may be used to provide a user with
the opportunity to select the language” among plural available languages,
and the screens can display information including “parental rating format or
other format particular to a selected language or country that uses a selected
language.” Ellis 2:55–65; Ans. 5.
We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill, in view of
Kellner and Ellis, would modify Kellner’s teaching of selecting an
appropriate audio track with Ellis’s teaching of selecting from displayed
audio options and ratings, in order to “cause output of the video signal and
the selected audio signal in response to a determination, based on the rating
information, that the selected audio signal corresponds to an approved
selection” as claimed. See Ans. 4, 5. Such combination would enhance the
user’s ability to select an appropriate audio signal (see Non-Final Act. 4),
and is no “more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to
their established functions.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
401 (2007).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 2. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth
by the Examiner, to the extent consistent with our analysis herein.

Independent Claim 10
Appellant argues the rejection of independent claim 10 is in error,
because “the Office does not specify what the ‘plurality of audio signals’ is
Appeal 2020-002848
Application 15/381,227

7
in Kellner, or what the ‘subset’ of those signals is alleged to be.” Appeal
Br. 11. Appellant contends “Kellner only discusses . . . determining whether
the single program selected by the user should be output to the user,” and
“[t]here is no disclosure in Kellner that its system determines a program,
with its corresponding audio channels, from a plurality of programs ‘based
on the metadata’ as recited in the claim.” Reply Br. 10.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. In the Non-Final
Action, the Examiner does not address the limitations of claim 10; rather, the
Examiner groups the rejection with claim 2, even though claim 10 recites
distinct limitations such as the “subset.” Non-Final Act. 5; see Appeal
Br. 17. In the Answer, the Examiner makes various assertions regarding
Kellner, such as “Kellner (the primary prior art of record), clearly discloses .
. . BROADCASTS few channels tailored for different viewers. audience. etc
. based on the viewers demographic characteristics, geographical location(s).
etc.; . . . selecting specific audio track{s) to play with the video, based on the
rating information corresponding to the desired selection.” Ans. 6. We
agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not presented a sufficient factual
basis to support these statements, however: the Examiner is not quoting
Kellner, nor has the Examiner identified the particular teachings in Kellner
relied on for this limitation. See Reply Br. 9, 10. We note the Examiner
does not rely on Ellis for this disputed limitation. See Ans. 6, 7.
Therefore, on this basis, we find the Examiner has not presented a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 10. We are
constrained by the record to not sustain this rejection.

Appeal 2020-002848
Application 15/381,227

8
Dependent Claim 8
Claim 8 depends ultimately from claim 2, and recites “cause
presentation of a modified audio signal list comprising the prioritized order
of the titles.” Appeal Br. 16.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection is in error, because
although “priority may be assigned to individual audio channels in Koehler,”
the reference’s “list of audio channels is static and does not change.”
Appeal Br. 12.
The Examiner finds Koehler presents a modified, prioritized list,
because Koehler’s “audio commentary or channels or tracks of interest are
numbered and prioritized,” and Koehler’s “receiver further updates the
listings continuously to provide a modified listings.” Ans. 9 (emphasis
omitted). We find the Examiner’s determination reasonable in view of the
record before us. See Koehler 3:30–31 (“the remote fan can prioritize the
selected teams in the list”), 6:44–46 (“Each of the team statistics are
provided to the server 36 as indicated at 65 and updated as necessary during
the race.”), 8:66–9:2 (“the user interface 50 or display . . . is updated to
indicate which audio channel and/or team member is being heard over the
speaker”). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding
the disputed limitation to be rendered obvious by Koehler.
We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent
claim 8.

Double Patenting
Appellant asserts the Examiner’s double patenting rejection is moot:
Appeal 2020-002848
Application 15/381,227

9
Appellant submitted a Terminal Disclaimer on October 10, 2019.
This Terminal Disclaimer was disapproved on October 17, 2019.
Without acquiescing to its propriety, a new Terminal Disclaimer
to address the rejection of claims 2-6, 8-16, and 18-25 under non-
statutory double patenting in view of claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent
No. 9,560,304 was submitted on February 14, 2020. This
rejection should now be moot and no longer a part of the present
Appeal.
Reply Br. 2.
There is no indication, in the record before us, that the most recently
filed Terminal Disclaimer has been approved. Accordingly, we disagree
with Appellant that the double patenting rejection is moot. We summarily
affirm the rejection.
CONCLUSION
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding independent claim
2 and dependent claim 8 to be obvious in view of the cited art. Appellant
does not present separate substantive arguments for the remaining claims.
See Appeal Br. 10, 13. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of these claims.
We are persuaded the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 10 is
in error. We do not sustain this rejection, the rejections of independent
claims 18 and 21 which recite similar limitations, or the claims dependent
thereon.
We sustain the Examiner’s double patenting rejection.

Appeal 2020-002848
Application 15/381,227

10
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
2, 3, 5, 6, 9–
12, 14–16,
18–22, 24,
25
103(a) Kellner, Ellis 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 10–12, 14–
16, 18–22,
24, 25
4, 8, 13, 23 103(a) Kellner, Ellis,
Koehler
4, 8 13, 23
2–6, 8–16,
18–25
Nonstatutory
Obviousness-Type
Double Patenting
2–6, 8–16,
18–25

Overall
Outcome
2–6, 8–16,
18–25

The Examiner’s decision is affirmed because we have affirmed at
least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED