Ex Parte Vagnati

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2014

11828486 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/828,486 07/26/2007 Michelle L. Vagnati PD-207051 9420
20991 7590 03/31/2014
THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC.
PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION
CA / LA1 / A109
2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
EXAMINER
PENG, HSIUNGFEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2014 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 MICHELLE L. VAGNATI
____________

Appeal 2011-011911
Application 11/828,486
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR.,
and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-011911
Application 11/828,486

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to arranging virtual channels and
linear channels for a content processing system including arranging virtual
channel assignments with a predetermined relationship to their respective
linear channel number assignments. See Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method comprising:
assigning a linear channel number assignment for each linear channel
at a content processing system;
assigning virtual channel numbers for respective virtual channels at a
content processing system so that the virtual channel numbers each have a
same fixed predetermined relationship to the respective linear channel
number assignment;
communicating linear channel data for the linear channel and virtual
channel data for the virtual channel to a user device; and
displaying the linear channel data and virtual channel data on a screen
display associated with the user device so that the virtual channel has the
fixed relationship to the linear channel.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, 12, and 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Nakano (U.S. Pub. No.
2002/0157109 A1).
Appeal 2011-011911
Application 11/828,486

3
2. Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e)/103(a) as being
anticipated by Nakano or unpatentable over Nakano in view of
Hutchings (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0301744 A1).
3. Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakano in view of Hutchings.
4. Claims 9, 10, and 13-15 are under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakano.

ISSUES
The issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding:
1. Nakano teaches the limitation of “the virtual channel numbers each
have a same fixed predetermined relationship to the respective linear
channel number assignment” as recited in claim 1; and
2. the combination of Nakano and Hutchings teaches the limitation of
“adding a predetermined number to the linear channel assignment to
obtain the virtual channel assignment” as recited in claim 3.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, 12, and 16
Appellant does not contest that Nakano teaches assigning a channel
number to a virtual channel is being performed by correlating the channel
number with the virtual channels (App. Br. 5). However, Appellant argues
that Nakano does not teach or suggest that each of the virtual channels has
the same fixed relationship to the respective linear channel assignment (App.
Br. 5).
Appeal 2011-011911
Application 11/828,486

4
We do not find Appellant’s argument to be persuasive. Nakano
teaches, and Appellant agrees (App. Br. 5), a microprocessor that correlates
channel numbers with virtual channels (¶ [0010]). The correlation of a
channel number to a virtual number by itself denotes a fixed relationship of
the virtual channel number and the linear channel number. If there is a
correlation, it necessarily means that the relationship between the two
channels is not changing, and thus, there is a fixed relationship. Otherwise,
it would be impossible to correlate the two types of channels.
Appellant raises similar arguments with respect to claims 2 and 5
(App. Br. 5-6). We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 11, 12, and
16 which fall with claim 5.
Claim 3
Appellant argues that Nakano in view of Hutchings does not teach
adding a predetermined number to the linear channel assignment to obtain
the virtual channel assignment as recited in claim 3 (App. Br. 7).
Appellant, in particular, argues that Hutchings’ paragraph 5 does not
teach or suggest a virtual channel or the relationship of a virtual channel
with a physical channel (App. Br. 7). The relationship, according to
Appellant, merely provides an analog channel as channel “C” and the first
digital programming channel as C.1 and a second digital programming
channel as C.2 (App. Br. 7).
We do not find Appellant’s arguments to be persuasive. Hutchings
teaches a broadcaster can provide its analog programming on channel C,
where C is the positive whole number, (i.e., indicating a linear channel) and
map a respective first digital programming on channel C.1 (i.e., virtual
channel) (see ¶ [0005], Ans. 10). Accordingly, Hutchings teaches adding a
Appeal 2011-011911
Application 11/828,486

5
predetermined number (i.e., “.1”) to the linear channel assignment (i.e., “C”)
to obtain the virtual channel assignment (i.e., “C.1”) as required by claim 3.
Claims 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15
We also affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 4, 9, 10, 13, 14,
and 15 for the same reasons as stated supra, as no separate arguments of
patentability were presented with respect to these claims.
Claims 6 and 7
Appellant expressed intent to not appeal claims 6 and 7. App. Br. 2.
Similarly, Appellant’s “Status of the Claims” section indicates that claims 6
and 7 are not appealed (App. Br. 2). However, Appellant’s “Ground of
Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal” section lists claims 6 and 7 (App. Br.
3-4). Accordingly, there is no clear intent to appeal fewer than all of the
finally rejected claims and Appellant waived any arguments rebutting the
rejections of claims 6 and 7. Thus, we summarily sustain the rejections of
the not argued claims 6 and 7.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in finding:
1. Nakano teaches the limitation of “the virtual channel numbers each
have a same fixed predetermined relationship to the respective linear
channel number assignment” as recited in claim 1; and
2. the combination of Nakano and Hutchings teaches the limitation of
“adding a predetermined number to the linear channel assignment to
obtain the virtual channel assignment” as recited in claim 3.

Appeal 2011-011911
Application 11/828,486

6
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-16 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

gvw