Ex Parte Arling

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2018

13793519 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/793,519 03/11/2013 Paul D. Arling
34018 7590 10/01/2018
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
77 W. Wacker Drive
Suite 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
81230.164US1 1605
EXAMINER
SALTARELLI, DOMINIC D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2018 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):
chiipmail@gtlaw.com
escobedot@gtlaw.com
j arosikg@gtlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL D. ARLING 1
Appeal 2017-011815
Application 13/793 ,519
Technology Center 2400
Before SHARON PENICK, JOHN R. KENNY, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-10, which constitute all pending claims. Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies Universal Electronics Inc. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-011815
Application 13/793,519
SPECIFICATION
The Specification relates generally to methods for configuring a smart
device program guide app and, more particularly, to methods for presenting
a graphical user interface (GUI) on a portable device, e.g. a smart device,
which may utilize a Multi-System Operator (MSO) map, which correlates
MSOs to geographic locations, to identify the MSO provider and display a
channel lineup appropriate to that MSO. Spec. 3.
CLAIMED INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for configuring a program guide graphical
user interface (GUI) on a portable device, comprising:
determining a current geographical location of the
portable device;
receiving by the portable device data indicative of an
identity of a set-top box;
using the data indicative of the identity of the set-top box
and the determined current geographical location of the portable
device to identify within a Multi-System Operator (MSO) map,
in which each of a plurality of MSO providers is correlated to a
geographical location and a set-top box identity, a one of the
plurality of MSO providers;
identifying a channel lineup that is appropriate for the
identified one of the plurality of MSO providers and the
determined current geographical location of the portable device;
and
2
Appeal 2017-011815
Application 13/793,519
configuring the program guide GUI on the portable
device whereby the selected channel lineup is displayable to a
user of the portable device for use in commanding tuning
operations of the set-top box.
Cusick
Gaquin
Ukkadam
Demchenko
Lee
REFERENCES
US 2010/0311399 Al
US 2011/0258271 Al
US 2011/0283333 Al
US 2012/0151525 Al
US 2013/0047174 Al
REJECTIONS
Dec. 9, 2010
Oct. 20, 2011
Nov. 17, 2011
June 14, 2012
Feb.21,2013
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over
the combination of Cusick, Ukkadam, and Demchenko. Final Act. 4.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over the
combination of Cusick, Ukkadam, Demchenko, and Lee. Final Act. 8.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over the
combination of Cusick, Ukkadam, Demchenko, and Gaquin. Final Act. 9.
PRIOR APPEAL
This application was the subject of Appeal No. 2015-004162 ("'162
Appeal"), where we reviewed the Examiner's rejections of then-pending
claims 1-10 over the same prior art. In the '162 Appeal, we affirmed the
Examiner's rejections. ' 162 Decision on Appeal, 6.
3
Appeal 2017-011815
Application 13/793,519
OPINION
Claim 1
In the ' 162 appeal, Appellants disputed the Examiner's finding that
the cited prior art taught or suggested a particular limitation of then-pending
claim 1 (the "using-the-data" limitation), which read:
using the data indicative of the identity of the set-top box
to identify a one of a plurality of Multi-System Operator
(MSO) providers.
'162 Appeal Brief, 3--4, 10.
After we sustained the Examiner's finding regarding this limitation,
Appellant amended it, and it now reads:
using the data indicative of the identity of the set-top box and
the determined current geographical location of the portable
device to identify within a Multi-System Operator (MSO) map,
in which each of a plurality of MSO providers is correlated to a
geographical location and a set-top box identity, a one of the
plurality of MSO providers.
App. Br. 8.
In this Appeal, Appellant disputes that the cited prior art teaches or
suggests the using-the-data limitation of pending claim 1.
The Examiner relies on Cusick and Ukkadam for this limitation. Final
Act. 4--6, Ans. 3. The Examiner finds that Cusick teaches using the
determined current geographical location of a portable device to identify,
within an MSO map in which each of a plurality of MSO providers is
correlated to a geographical location, a one of the plurality of MSO
providers. Final Act. 4--5, citing Cusick ,r,r 105, 107, 171-172, 346, Fig. 3;
Ans. 3. Further, the Examiner finds Ukkadam teaches using data indicative
of the identity of the set-top box to identify one of a plurality of MSO
4
Appeal 2017-011815
Application 13/793,519
providers. Id. at 5---6, citing Ukkadam ,r,r 48-50, 54, 91-92, Fig. 3; Ans. 3.
The Examiner further finds, combined, these teachings teach or suggest the
current using-the-data limitation of claim 1. Final Act. 4--7; Ans. 3.
Appellant disputes this finding, arguing that Ukkadam does not teach
using data indicative of the identity of the set-top box to identify one of a
plurality ofMSO providers. App. Br. 5-7. In particular, Appellant argues
that the position that Ukkadam discloses "using the data indicative of the
identity of the set-top box to identify a one of a plurality of multi-system
operator (MSO) providers ... cannot stand." App. Br. 5. Referring to the
current using-the-data limitation of claim 1, Appellants further assert
"because Ukkadam fails to expressly or inherently disclose the claimed
element which has been acknowledged to be missing from Cusick and
Demchenko in the first instance, it is respectfully submitted that the
combination of Cusick, Ukkadam, and Demchenko cannot be said to present
a prima facie case of obviousness." Id. at 7.
Appellant made the same argument in the ' 162 Appeal. Appellant
noted that the Examiner acknowledged that the cited prior art, other than
Demchenko, did not teach the using-the-data limitation of then pending
claim 1: "It has been acknowledged that Cusick and Demchenko do not
disclose, teach or suggest the claimed element of 'using data indicative of an
identity of a set-top box to identify a one of a plurality of MSO providers."
' 162 App. Br. 3. Appellant argued that Ukkadam also does not teach that
limitation and, for that reason, the Examiner's rejection of then-pending
claim 1 should be reversed: "because Ukkadam fails to expressly or
inherently disclose the claimed element which has been acknowledged to be
missing from Cusick and Demchenko in the first instance, it is respectfully
5
Appeal 2017-011815
Application 13/793,519
submitted that the combination of Cusick, Ukkadam, and Demchenko cannot
be said to present a prima facie case of obviousness." '162 App. Br. 8. In
the '162 appeal, we ruled against Appellant on that issue. '162 Decision on
Appeal, 5.
Appellant did not appeal or request reconsideration of our '162
Decision, and Appellant has not provided us with any reasons why we
should modify our findings from that appeal. Accordingly, we maintain our
finding from the '162 appeal and rule against Appellant on the issue of
whether Ukkadam teaches using data indicative of the identity of the set-top
box to identify one of a plurality of MSO providers.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant correctly notes that the using-the-data
limitation of claim 1 was narrowed after the '162 Appeal. Reply Br. 2-3.
That, however, does not change the fact that Appellant raises the same issue
on this appeal that Appellant raised in the '162 Appeal: whether Ukkadam
teaches or suggests using data indicative of an identity of a set-top box to
identify a one of a plurality of MSO providers. The fact that the using-the-
data limitation of claim 1 has additional recitations now is of no
consequence because Appellant's argument regarding this limitation does
not rely on those additional recitations.
Appellant also argues that because the Examiner did not expressly
address the current language of claim 1 in the Final Action for this Appeal,
but rather addressed the language of claim 1 before Appellant amended it in
November 21, 2016, the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 should be reversed.
App. Br. 3-5. We, however, are not persuaded by this argument. Appellant
does not assert that it was confused as to what teachings the Examiner was
relying upon for any limitation of claim 1 as currently phrased. Id. The
6
Appeal 2017-011815
Application 13/793,519
Examiner, in fact, clarified that he was relying on the same discussion and
citations for the current recitation of claim 1 as for the language addressed in
the Final Action. Ans. 3. And even after that clarification, Appellant has
not identified any recitation of claim 1 that the cited prior art is purportedly
lacking, other than the purported lack of teaching by Ukkadam of using data
indicative of the identity of the set-top box to identify one of a plurality of
MSO providers. Reply Br. 2-3.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2-10.
Appellant does not separately argue claims 2-5, 7, 9, and 10, and
Appellant presents the same arguments for claims 6 and 8 as for claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 2-10.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7