Ex Parte Cansino et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 29, 2018

14191276 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/191,276 02/26/2014
141451 7590 10/29/2018
AT&T Legal Dept. - [HDP]
Attention: Patent Docketing, Room 2A-207
One AT&T Way
Bedminster, NJ 07921
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
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.
DTV210053A 2588
EXAMINER
ALCON, FERNANDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/29/2018 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
Appeal2017-000345
Application 14/191,276 1
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 37--44 and 75-80, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to using a touch screen device (e.g., a mobile
phone or tablet) to control a television set top box, in which the touch screen
buttons are configured based on the "event type identifier" of the content
being watched (e.g., a sports game). See Spec. ,r,r 1, 4, 5, claim 37. For
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is The DIRECTV Group,
Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-000345
Application 14/191,276
example, if watching a basketball game, the touch screen might display a
basketball-specific button to "skip free throw." Id. ,r,r 126, 128, 129, Fig. 24.
Illustrative Claim
Claim 37 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations
at issue emphasized:
3 7. 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 an event type
identifier;
displaying a remote control interface on the second screen
device having touch screen buttons configured based on the
event identifier; and
controlling a set top box based on selecting one of the
touch screen buttons.
Rejections
Claims 37--41, 44, 75-78, and 80 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as obvious over the combination of Mowrey et al. (US
2012/0174155 Al; July 5, 2012) and Allen et al. (US 2002/0154888 Al;
Oct. 24, 2002). Final Act. 2-5.
Claims 42, 43, and 79 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
obvious over the combination of Mowrey, Allen, and Istvan et al. (US
2006/0085835 Al; Apr. 20, 2006). Final Act. 5-6.
2
Appeal2017-000345
Application 14/191,276
Related Appeal
Appellants identify "Application Serial No. 14/191,288" (Appeal No.
2017-000121) as a related appeal. App. Br. 2. Both are divisional
applications from U.S. Application No. 13/224,206.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Mowrey teaches or suggests
"communicating a content information signal to the second screen device
from the set top box comprising an event type identifier" and "displaying a
remote control interface on the second screen device having touch screen
buttons configured based on the event identifier," as recited in claim 37?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Mowrey teaches or suggests
"the event type identifier comprises a sporting event identifier" as recited in
claim 3 8 and "the sporting event identifier ... corresponds to a specific
sport" in claim 39?
ANALYSIS
Claims 37, 4rJ--44, 75, and 78---80
Independent claim 3 7 recites "communicating a content information
signal to the second screen device from the set top box comprising an event
type identifier" and "displaying a remote control interface on the second
screen device having touch screen buttons configured based on the event
identifier. "2 Independent claim 7 5 recites commensurate limitations.
The Examiner relies on Mowrey for teaching these limitations. Final
Act. 3. Mowrey discloses a "television entertainment" system ( e.g., a "set-
2 Solely for purposes of this appeal, we assume that "the event identifier"
refers back to "an event type identifier."
3
Appeal2017-000345
Application 14/191,276
top box" connected to a TV) capable of "providing companion content on a
companion device" ( e.g., a "tablet" or "mobile phone") "where the
companion content relates to content being watched on a main display."
Mowrey ,r,r 1, 8, 32, 35. Data about the content can come in the form of
"metadata," such as the "title of the show." Id. ,r 46. Examples of
"Companion Content" on a secondary device are shown in Figures 3C and
3D of Mowrey. Id. ,r,r 63---64.
Appellants argue, "While Mowrey teaches the device 105
communicating metadata for the companion content to the second screen
device 200, Mowrey is silent as to communicating a content information
signal comprising an event type identifier." App. Br. 7.
The Examiner, however, determines:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of an event type identifier
is any metadata which indicates or identifies what type of content
"event" the program [is]. As the specification only defines
"event type" by example of "sporting event" one can reasonably
interpret the identification to read on any metadata which is
specific to a particular genre or sub-genre.
Ans. 3. The Examiner relies on Mowrey's disclosure of "metadata" that
"identifies various levels of detail regarding the content being watched ... ,
including title of the show, program being watched, time stamp of the show,
various details of scenes being rendered, etc." Mowrey ,r 46; Ans. 3; see
also Mowrey Fig. 3B (showing genres such as "Comedy" and "Drama"
associated with each show in a program guide on Mowrey's companion
device). "Therefore based on the disclosure of Mowrey several of the
metadata elements would reasonably convey 'event type' identification."
Ans. 3. The Examiner illustrates with an example that applies Mowrey' s
teachings but is not expressly in Mowrey:
4
Appeal2017-000345
Application 14/191,276
For example a user watching football on a Monday night on their
"main device" could result in metadata being sent to the
secondary device including title of show ( e.g. Monday Night
Football), program being watched ( e.g. "Baltimore Ravens at
Pittsburg Steelers"), various details of scenes being rendered
(e.g. "first and ten", "Touchdown", etc.) all of which would be
indicative of a sporting type genre/event but also football sub-
genre/ event.
Ans. 3--4.
The Examiner then points to Figures 3C and 3D of Mowrey as
examples in which "[ t ]he companion content displayed on the second screen
device is based on metadata provided by the main device to the secondary
device," such as "content data" and "search queries related to the content."
Ans. 4--5.
Appellants respond that "[g]enres and sub-genres, however, are not
events" and "[ t ]herefore, metadata that is specific to a particular genre or
sub-genre could not reasonably be interpreted as an 'event type identifier' as
claimed." Reply Br. 2. Yet Appellants fail to explain how or why an "event
type identifier" is different than genre or other metadata. The Specification
describes "sports" as an "event type," and more specifically discloses
"basketball events." Spec. ,r,r 126, 129. "Sports" is itself a genre and
"basketball" a sub-genre. Moreover, the Specification explains that "sports
events" "may be both live and recorded events." Id. ,r 129. Thus, there is no
requirement that an "event" be live.
Yet even if limited to live sports games, we still are not persuaded by
Appellants' argument. Mowrey discloses that "[t]he analysis of the
metadata detects changes in the content being rendered on the main device
which results [in] changes in the obtained companion content that is
rendered on the secondary device." Mowrey Abstract. For example, Figure
5
Appeal2017-000345
Application 14/191,276
3C of Mowrey shows touchable search result buttons specific to the TV
show "Survivor" being watched, whereas Figure 3D shows different
touchable search result buttons specific to the "House" television show.
Mowrey ,r,r 63---64. Two different sporting events likewise would have
different touchable search result buttons based on the metadata and more
specifically based on the sporting event types ( e.g., "Monday Night
Football" versus "NBA on TNT"). Appellants argue that the Examiner's
"Monday Night Football" example is "mere speculation on the part of the
Examiner" because Mowrey does not expressly disclose it (Reply Br. 3), yet
Mowrey expressly discloses "sports" as a known type of media content
(Mowrey ,r 5) and Appellants do not dispute that such sports-like all other
kinds of content-would have identifying metadata (id. ,r 9). As presently
written, the claimed "event type identifier" and "touch screen buttons" are
very broad, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
that Mowrey's metadata and companion content were not limited to the
specific TV shows depicted in Figures 3C and 3D.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 37 and 75, and their dependent claims 40-44 and 78-80, which
Appellants argue are patentable for similar reasons. See App. Br. 9;
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 38, 39, 76, and 77
Dependent claims 3 8 and 7 6 recite "the event type identifier
comprises a sporting event identifier." Dependent claims 39 and 77 further
6
Appeal2017-000345
Application 14/191,276
recite "the touch screen button [is] configured in response to the sporting
event identifier which corresponds to a specific sport. " 3
Appellants argue that the cited references do not teach or suggest a
content information signal "comprising a sporting event identifier" or
touch screen buttons "configured based on the sporting event identifier."
App. Br. 9--10.
We agree with the Examiner, however, that "it is well known in the
art to provide sporting event programming in the art of video distribution
and Mowrey paragraph [0005] discloses it is known to provide sports
media." Ans. 5. As discussed above for independent claim 3 7, we are
persuaded that it would have been obvious that Mowrey' s metadata for
sports content would identify the content as being related to a specific sport
such as football or basketball. Id.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 38 and 39.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 37--44 and 75-80.
No time for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
3 We observe that dependent claim 39 recites "the touch screen button"
singular, whereas independent claim 3 7 recites "touch screen buttons"
plural. We further note that independent claim 7 5 recites "a touch screen
button" singular and "said touch screen buttons" plural.
7