David Arbuckle et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 4, 2020

14730519 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 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.
14/730,519 06/04/2015 David Arbuckle 102005.022080 1092
71581 7590 02/04/2020
BakerHostetler / Comcast
Cira Centre, 12th Floor
2929 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891
EXAMINER
GEE, ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/04/2020 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):
eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DAVID ARBUCKLE, JASON BURGESS,
NEILL KIPP, and RICHARD FLIAM
____________________

Appeal 2018-003669
Application 14/730,519
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 4–13 and 21–27. Claims 1–3 stand withdrawn in
response to a restriction requirement (see Restriction Requirement mailed
April 22, 2016; Response to Restriction Requirement filed June 22, 2016).
Claims 14–20 have been canceled (see Final Act. 2; Appeal Br. 18). We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. “The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the
inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as
provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to
Appellant, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC is the real party in interest
(Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2018-003669
Application 14/730,519

2
We REVERSE.

INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a method for managing storage
and delivery of recorded content (e.g., a television program, movie, or sports
event consisting of plural segments in a sequential order) in a cloud or
network (as opposed to a set-top box) digital video recording (DVR) system
100 in which a service provider (e.g., a cable television service provider)
may receive and respond to requests to deliver programs for playback (see
Fig. 1; Spec. ¶¶ 1–4, 16). Program segments may be “2-second segments”
(Spec. ¶ 18), and segments may correspond to advertisements inserted in the
program (see Spec. ¶ 21). A linear module 116 controls how a program is
segmented and put together for delivery and playback (see Spec. ¶ 20), and a
recording management system 124 coordinates multiple duplicate program
delivery and playback to multiple users (see Spec. ¶ 23). Appellant’s
disclosed and claimed invention can increase performance “because the read
operation of the segment from the linear storage 120 need only occur a
single time for all the segment copies instead of once for each segment
copy” (Spec. ¶ 25). In addition, Appellant’s invention delivers content more
efficiently for playback by managing segments (see e.g., Spec. ¶ 29).
Independent method claim 4 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced
below, with bracketed lettering and emphases added to disputed portions of
the claim.
4. A method comprising:
receiving a plurality of requests to record a content asset,
wherein the content asset comprises a plurality of segments;
Appeal 2018-003669
Application 14/730,519

3
determining a segment from the plurality of segments to
store at a first storage;
receiving a copy of the segment from a second storage;
and
[A] causing, based on the copy of the segment received
from the second storage, a plurality of copies of the segment to
be generated and stored in the first storage, [B] wherein a
quantity of the plurality of copies of the segment is a quantity of
the plurality of requests to record the content asset, and [C]
wherein each copy of the plurality of copies of the segment is
associated with a respective user of a plurality of users.

Appeal Br. 16, Claims Appendix (emphases and bracketed lettering
added).

EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 4–13 and 21–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the same base combination of Lemus et al. (US
2015/0350701 A1; published Dec. 3, 2015 and filed May 28,
2014)(hereinafter, “Lemus”), Yasrebi et al. (US 2008/0086750 A1;
published April 10, 2008), and Makishima et al. (US 2003/0133453 A1;
published July 17, 2003)(hereinafter, “Makishima”). Final Act. 6–24; Ans.
4–22.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs (Appeal Br. 3–
14; Reply Br. 1–16), the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 6–24; Ans. 4–22),
and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments (Ans. 22–26).
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
Appeal 2018-003669
Application 14/730,519

4
rejection of all of the disputed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant presents several arguments asserting the Examiner’s
rejections of independent claims 4 and 21, each relying upon the same base
combination of Lemus, Yasrebi, and Makishima, is in error (Appeal Br. 3–
14; Reply Br. 1–16). The issue presented by these arguments is whether or
not the Examiner erred in finding the base combination of Lemus, Yasrebi,
and Makishima teaches or suggests the segmenting process recited in
limitations A–C of independent claim 4, and as commensurately recited in
remaining independent claim 21.
The Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based on the
interpretations that (i) claims 4 and 21, and specifically limitation A recited
in claim 4 and similarly recited in claim 21, do not require the first and
second storage elements to be at different location, and broadly allow the
storage elements to be within the same device or storage area (see Ans. 23);
and (ii) claims 4 and 21, and specifically limitation C recited in claim 4 and
similarly recited in claim 21, do not require a one-to-one relationship of each
copy of a segment with a different user (i.e., a copy of a segment may be
associated with only one user, or several users) (see Ans. 24–25).
With regard to the Examiner’s first interpretation as to limitation A,
the purpose of Appellant’s invention, efficient management of content for
delivery using multiple storage elements (see Fig. 1, linear storage 120,
recording storage 128, archive storage 130; Spec. ¶¶ 19–29), would be
frustrated by storing content in two different memory cells of the very same
storage unit as the Examiner reasons.
In addition, in rejecting independent claims 4 and 21, the Examiner
makes the confusing findings that (i) limitation A is met by the combination
Appeal 2018-003669
Application 14/730,519

5
of Lemus and Yasrebi (Final Act. 6–7); (ii) limitation B is met by the
combination of Lemus, Yasrebi, and Makishima (Final Act. 6–8); and (iii)
limitation C is met by the combination of Lemus and Yasrebi (Final Act. 6–
7). The Examiner’s conclusions of obviousness are all based on the finding
that Yasrebi teaches or suggests a content asset may be a plurality of
segments (see Final Act. 7 citing Yasrebi ¶¶ 17, 52, 53). The portions of
Yasrebi cited by the Examiner describe first and second portions of media
content being downloaded to users in different manners depending on the
technical capabilities of the user device employed (e.g., where the devices
differ in their storage capacity, such as a cell phone, laptop computer, or set-
top box) (see Yasrebi ¶¶ 17, 52, 53). In other words, Yasrebi only teaches
sending content to a single user of multiple devices. In this light, and in
view of the Examiner’s improper interpretation of limitation A as covering
multiple user devices of a single user, Appellant’s arguments that the cited
art does not disclose generating and storing plural copies of a segment as
recited in limitation A of claim 4 (Appeal Br. 3–5; Reply Br. 2–3), are
persuasive. In addition, we also find Appellant’s arguments regarding the
lack of motivation to combine Lemus with Yasrebi (Reply Br. 3–5)
persuasive.
With regard to the Examiner’s second interpretation as to limitation C,
the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the Specification is that
each copy of a segment be associated with different users. This is because
the purpose of Appellant’s invention is to deliver content, including
segments, to plural different users more efficiently by operating on segments
copies that are sent to plural different requesting users (see Spec. ¶¶ 22–29).
One of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably understand the plurality
Appeal 2018-003669
Application 14/730,519

6
of requests for content recited in limitation B to be from one and the same
user, but from different users. In this light, Appellant’s arguments that the
cited art does not disclose associating each copy of the segment with a
respective user of a plurality of users as recited in limitation C of claim 4
(Appeal Br. 7–9; Reply Br. 9–10), are persuasive.
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 4 and 21, and the claims which depend
thereupon. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
independent clams 4 and 21, or dependent claims 5–13 and 22–27, based
upon the combination of Lemus, Yasrebi, and Makishima.

Appeal 2018-003669
Application 14/730,519

7
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 4–13 and 21–27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
4, 11 103 Lemus, Yasrebi,
Makishima
4, 11
5, 13 103 Lemus, Yasrebi,
Makishima, Winter et
al.2
5, 13
6–9 103 Lemus, Yasrebi,
Makishima,
Adimatyam et al.3
6–9
10, 12, 21, 26,
27
103 Lemus, Yasrebi,
Makishima, Luby et
al.4
10, 12, 21,
26, 27
22 103 Lemus, Yasrebi,
Makishima, Luby,
Winter
22
23–25 103 Lemus, Yasrebi,
Makishima, Luby,
Adimatyam
23–25
Overall
Outcome
4–13, 21–
27

REVERSED

2 US 5,862,342; issued Jan. 19, 1999 (hereinafter, “Winter”).
3 US 2014/0153904 A1; published June 5, 2014 (hereinafter,
“Adimatyam”).
4 US 2011/0231569 A1; published Sept. 22, 2011 (hereinafter, “Luby”).