Ex Parte Cansino et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2018

14631076 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/631,076 02/25/2015
141451 7590 03/28/2018
AT&T Legal Dept. - [HDP]
Attention: Patent Docketing, Room 2A-207
One AT&T Way
Bedminster, NJ 07921
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Don E. Cansino
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.
DTV210053C 3188
EXAMINER
ALCON, FERNANDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DONE. CANSINO, BRADY C. TSURUTANI,
EARL J. BONOVICH, and CHARLES W. BEESON
Appeal2017-002502 1
Application 14/631,076
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-27, 32-36, 52-70, and 72-74. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as The DIRECTV Group, Inc.
(App. Br. 2).
Appeal2017-002502
Application 14/631,076
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "using a second screen device to
enhance a user experience by providing data about programming or
controlling a set top box or both" (Spec. i-f 1 ).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method comprising:
displaying content on a display associated with a set top
box·
'
generating a content information request signal at a
second screen device requesting data corresponding to the
content;
communicating the content information request signal to
the set top box;
communicating a content information signal to the
second screen device from the set top box comprising a content
identifier and a channel identifier identifying a channel
broadcasting the content;
generating a request for related data signal corresponding
to the content and channel at the second screen device using the
content identifier;
communicating the request for related data signal from
the second screen device;
aggregating related content data corresponding to the
content and channel to form an aggregated related content data
signal;
communicating the aggregated related content data signal
to the second screen device; and
displaying the aggregated related content data at the
second screen device.
2
Appeal2017-002502
Application 14/631,076
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1---6, 10-12, 16-19, 21-24, 32, 33, 36,
52-55, 57-59, 60---67, and 72-74 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the
teachings of Mowrey (US 2012/0174155 Al; July 5, 2012) and Jung (US
2004/0201617 Al; Oct. 14, 2014).
The Examiner rejected claims 7, 8, 13, 15, 20, 34, and 56 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Mowrey, in view of Jung and
further in view of Edson (US 6,526,581 Bl; Feb. 25, 2003).
The Examiner rejected claims 9, 14, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Mowrey in view of Jung and further in view of
Istvan (US 2006/0085835 Al; Apr. 20, 2006).
The Examiner rejected claims 25-27 and 68-70 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Mowrey in view of Urrabazo (US
2008/0066011 Al; Mar. 13, 2008). 2
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Mowery teaches and suggests all the limitations
of independent claims 1 and 52 except for explicitly teaching
"communicating a channel identifier identifying a channel broadcasting the
content and generating a request corresponding to the channel at the second
screen device, and aggregating related content data corresponding to the
content and channel" (Final Act. 5). The Examiner finds Jung discloses this
teaching (id.).
2 We note Jung was inadvertently left out of this rejection. Claims 25-27
and 68-70 depend from independent claims 1 and 52. We find this harmless
error.
3
Appeal2017-002502
Application 14/631,076
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Jung discloses the
limitation for which it was relied on because Jung does not communicate a
second screen device from a set top box and is silent as to generating a
request for a related signal at the second screen device (App. Br. 7-8).
Appellants also contend Jung does not teach or suggest aggregating related
content, communicating the aggregated related content, and displaying the
aggregated related data to the second screen device (App. Br. 8). We do not
agree.
The Examiner relied on Mowrey, not Jung for teaching and
suggesting a second screen device (Final Act. 4, citing i-f 47; Ans. 3). That
is, Mowrey discloses communicating metadata/data associated with content
on a main device to a second screen device, the metadata/data including
controlling data (i-fi-1 46-4 7). Jung was cited to show it was known to skilled
artisans at the time of Appellants' invention that the part of metadata/ data
controlling information being communicated to the second device can
include channel identifier information (Final Act. 5; Ans.3; Jung i-f 39). As
to aggregating data, Mowery's paragraph 48 teaches aggregating content
(see, e.g., i-fi-147--48; aggregator 400, Figs. 1, 2A, 2B). Thus, we agree with
the Examiner that Appellants are arguing the references individually and not
as a combination (Ans. 3).
Appellants' claim a broad method claim (claim 1) and apparatus claim
(claim 52) that basically display aggregated related content (information) at
a set top box by sending information from one device to another device.
Contrary to Appellants assertions (App. Br. 9), the Examiner has provided
articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning, as noted above (see Final
Act. 1-5). Thus, in light of the broad terms recited in the claims and the
4
Appeal2017-002502
Application 14/631,076
arguments presented, Appellants have failed to clearly distinguish their
claimed invention over the prior art relied on by the Examiner. Therefore,
we find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner's ultimate legal
conclusion of obviousness, and sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1 and 52, argued for the same reasons, and dependent
claims 2-27, 32-36, 53-70, and 72-74, for which patentability was argued
based on their dependency from claims 1 and 52.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-27, 32-36, 52-70, and
72-74 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5