Ex Parte Zaveri

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2018

13731798 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
131731,798 12/31/2012
70336 7590 03/28/2018
Seed IP Law Group/DISH Technologies (290110)
701 FIFTH A VENUE
SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104
Sagar Zaveri
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.
P2012-l l-05 (290110.572) 2442
EXAMINER
TRINH, TUNG THANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2018 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):
USPTOeAction@SeedIP.com
pairlinkdktg@seedip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAGAR ZA VERI
Appeal2017-008510
Application 13/731, 798
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, IRVINE. BRANCH, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4--11, and 13-18, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). Claims 3 and
12 are cancelled. App. Br. 18, 20 (Claims App'x).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellant is the Applicant, EchoStar
Technologies L.L.C. App. Br. 2; Bib. Data Sheet.
Appeal2017-008510
Application 13/731,798
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's disclosed invention "relates to a content receiver with an
intelligent recording capability." Spec. 1 :5---6. Claim 1, which is illustrative,
reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
monitoring interaction between a user and a content
receiver during presentation of a plurality of live program
contents, the monitoring including generating a viewing token
that represents an interaction between the user and the content
receiver, the viewing token including an activity code that
indicates a user action in controlling a program content, an
identifier of the program content and a time stamp;
collecting data associated with the user's viewing of the
plurality of live program contents, the data including the
viewing token;
aggregating the collected data over a selected period of
time;
determining a viewing pattern based on an analysis of the
aggregated data;
identifying a recording candidate for a scheduled
automatic recording, the recording candidate being an
upcoming program content falling within the determined
viewing pattern;
automatically recording the identified recording
candidate as a recorded program content, and
notifying the user of an availability of the recorded
program content for playback.
App. Br. 18 (claim status omitted) (Claims App'x).
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Mizuno et al.
Phillips et al.
Wood et al.
US 2003/0046696 Al
US 2003/0126607 Al
US 2007 /0074258 Al
2
Mar. 6, 2003
July 3, 2003
Mar. 29, 2007
Appeal2017-008510
Application 13/731,798
Bon tempi
Nomura et al.
US 2007/0122108 Al
US 2009/0148133 Al
May 31, 2007
June 11, 2009
Claims 11, 13, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)2 as
being unpatentable over Mizuno et al. ("Mizuno") and Wood et al.
("Wood"). See Final Act. 2-5.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 7-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mizuno, Wood, and Phillips et al. ("Phillips"). See
Final Act 5-9.
Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mizuno, Wood, and Nomura et al. ("Nomura"). See Final
Act. 9-10.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mizuno, Wood, and Bontempi. See Final Act. 9.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mizuno, Wood, Phillips, and Nomura. See Final Act. 10-
1 1.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mizuno, Wood, Phillips, and Bontempi. See Final Act.
11-12.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs ("App.
Br." filed Dec. 5, 2016; "Reply Br." filed May 22, 2017) for the positions of
Appellant; the Final Office Action ("Final Act." mailed Feb. 24, 2016),
Advisory Office Action ("Adv. Act." mailed Aug. 5, 2016), and Examiner's
2 All rejections are under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 103 in effect prior to
the effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 ("pre-
AIA"). Final Act 2.
3
Appeal2017-008510
Application 13/731,798
Answer ("Ans." mailed Mar. 22, 2017) for the reasoning, findings, and
conclusions of the Examiner; and the Specification ("Spec." filed Dec. 31,
2012).
ISSUE
The dispositive issue presented by Appellant's arguments is whether
the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Mizuno and Wood, with or
without Phillips, teaches or suggests "generating a viewing token that
represents an interaction between the user and the content receiver, the
viewing token including an activity code that indicates a user action in
controlling a program content, an identifier of the program content and a
time stamp" (emphasis added) (the "viewing token limitation"), as recited in
independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claim 11. 3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner relies on Wood, when combined with Mizuno, to teach
the viewing token limitation. Final Act. 6 (citing Mizuno i-fi-1 7 5-7 6, Fig. 1;
Wood i-fi-126-27, 32-33, 51-52, Figs. 2, 3); Ans. 2--4 (additionally citing
Spec. 7:16-17; Mizuno, Abstract, i-f 2, Figs. 6, 14, 15, 17, 19, 23; Wood
i-fi-134--42. The Examiner concludes "[i]t would be obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to modify Mizuno' [ s]
teaching including Wood's teaching in order to improve the data
processing." Final Act. 7. The Examiner further explains the
combination of Wood and Mizuno as follows:
3 Appellant's arguments present additional issues. Because the identified
issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional issues.
4
Appeal2017-008510
Application 13/731,798
[T]he motivation for combine Mizuno and Wood is improving
the data processing of text files which is based on the year 2003
where SQL[4] was officially developed to use XML[ 5], SQL is
used in Wood's system and Mizuno'[s] invention was filed
before 2003 which is mostly text database.
Additionally, another motivation is found in the
embodiments and paragraph [0002] of Mizuno, monitoring
viewer's interactivity in order to provide variety of information
and services including Wood's targeted advertisement service
or Mizuno' [ s] scheduled recording service.
Ans. 4.
Appellant contends that "Wood does not teach or suggest 'the viewing
token including an activity code that indicates a user action in controlling a
program content, an identifier of the program content and a time stamp' as
recited in claim 1." App. Br. 13. Although Appellant mischaracterizes the
Examiner's actual findings, which were based on a combination of Mizuno
and Wood, we nevertheless agree with the Appellant's basic premise, i.e.,
that the Examiner has not established that the token taught by Wood, when
combined with the teaching of Mizuno, would have taught or suggested the
viewing token limitation.
As initial matter, we construe the phrase "viewing token including an
activity code that indicates a user action in controlling a program content,
an identifier of the program content and a time stamp" ("viewing token" for
brevity), as recited in claim 1. We give the term its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
4 Structured Query Language. McGRAW-HILL DICTIONARY OF ELECTRICAL
AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING 544 (2004) ("MCGRAW-HILL DICT.").
5 Extensible Markup Language. McGRAW-HILL DICT. 637.
5
Appeal2017-008510
Application 13/731,798
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), without importing limitations from the Specification
into the claim, In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Examiner explains that "[i]t is known in the art, [that] there are
many types of token[s]. The token of the instant application is similar to
[an] access token which includes an identifier for identification and data
identifiers (logs or tags)." Ans. 2; see also Ans. 5. We disagree. Although
the Examiner describes one known meaning of "token" (see ACADEMIC
PRESS DICTIONARY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2229 (1992) ("ACAD.
PRESS DICT. ") ("[A] coded electrical signal used to link computer equipment
to a network.")), it is not consistent with the use of the term in the
Specification.
Appellant's Specification explains that "[ e Jach token preferably is a
binary data that includes a code for the user's activity, the program content
selected, and a time stamp." Spec. 7: 16-17. The ordinary meaning in the
art of "token" consistent with its use in the Specification is explicated by the
following definition from a technical dictionary: "[A] group of bits that can
easily be distinguished from other groups within a sequence of characters."
Ac AD. PRESS DICT. 2229' accord McGRA w-HILL DICT. 5 89 ("[A]
distinguishable unit in a sequence of characters.") We conclude the broadest
reasonable interpretation of "viewing token" is a data structure that
comprises a distinguishable unit of binary data, the data included in the
token including an indication of a user action in controlling a program
content, an identifier of the program content, and a time stamp within the
distinguishable unit.
We assume, arguendo, that Mizuno and Wood, individually or in
combination, teach or suggest collecting data including "a user action in
6
Appeal2017-008510
Application 13/731,798
controlling a program content, an identifier of the program content and a
time stamp." Wood teaches the use of a token to collect and transmit data
(Wood i-f 51) but explicitly omits the associated time stamp from being
included in the token's data structure (Wood i-f 51). The Examiner appears
to take the position that Wood's teaching of SQL would improve Mizuno's
text-based XML data gathering process, but gives no explanation as to why
it would have been obvious to include Wood's or Mizuno's time stamp in
Wood's token.
The Examiner states that the
[e]mbodiment of viewer's program data of [Mizuno's] [F]igure
14 and flowchart of [F]igure 15 (monitoring channel selection
determine program content to schedule recording). The data of
figure 14 is likely from a token because transmitting data (878
of [F]igure 15) to server is likely to include device or user
identifier for identification. The data includes "Title of
program[."]
Ans. 3. The Examiner draws similar inferences regarding the data illustrated
in Mizuno' s Figure 17. We agree with Appellant that
even if data "is likely" to include user or device identifiers, it
does not mean it is from a token. Data including user or device
identifiers can, and routinely is, transmitted without using a
token and Mizuno mentions nothing about using a token. Thus,
assuming that the data of Mizuno is "likely from a token"
because it "is likely to include device or user identifier" is
simply incorrect and goes beyond the actual teachings of
Mizuno.
Reply Br. 4.
Appellant has shown error in the Examiner's finding and conclusion
that the combination of Mizuno and Wood teaches or suggests the viewing
token limitation of claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of
7
Appeal2017-008510
Application 13/731,798
(1) claim 1; (2) claim 11; and (3) claims 2, 4--10, and 13-18, which
variously depend, directly or indirectly, from claims 1 or 11.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4--11, and 13-18 is
reversed.
REVERSED
8