Fathy Yassa

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 20, 2020

13411323 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
13/411,323 03/02/2012 Fathy Yassa A209921 4743
23373 7590 04/20/2020
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2000 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 900
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
CASTRO, ALFONSO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/20/2020 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
USPTO@sughrue.com
sughrue@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FATHY YASSA
Appeal 2018-009225
Application 13/411,323
Technology Center 2400

BEFORE MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, SHARON FENICK, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 13–42, all of the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Mr. Fathy Yassa is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-009225
Application 13/411,323

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to “transmit[ting] content to a
viewer’s wireless hand held device as an alternative or complement to TV
viewing, using a digital satellite, cable or terrestrial set-top-box [(STB)], [or]
an interne[t] enabled set-top box.” Spec. ¶ 2.2 According to Appellant,
“digital data encoded to be received by one or more handheld devices for
playback is inserted into the transport stream by the content provider and is
transmitted via satellite, cable or terrestrial television digital channels to a
STB and wirelessly re-transmitted to a handheld receiver for decoding and
playback.” Id. at ¶ 8.
Claims 13, 19, and 33 are independent. Independent claim 13,
reproduced below with limitations at issue emphasized, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
13. A method of a content delivery system providing
content of a content provider to a television and a mobile
device, the method comprising:
receiving a first transport stream of content transmitted
from the content provider;
demultiplexing the content of the first transport stream;
transmitting a signal of a first television channel of the
demultiplexed content to the television;
converting, by at least one processor of the content
delivery system, audio/video (AV) content of a second television

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to: (1) Appellant’s Specification filed
March 2, 2012 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed
June 15, 2017; (3) the Appeal Brief filed April 4, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”);
(4) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed July 27, 2018; and (5) the Reply
Brief filed September 27, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2018-009225
Application 13/411,323

3
channel of the demultiplexed content to a second transport
stream;
and
streaming the second transport stream to the mobile
device.
Appeal Br. 23 (Claims Appendix).

REFERENCES
The references3 relied upon by the Examiner are:
Name Reference Date
Margulis US 2001/0021998 A1 Sept. 13, 2001
Scholten US 2003/0077065 A1 Apr. 24, 2003
Dureau US 2003/0135860 A1 July 17, 2003
Bisdikian US 2004/0117857 A1 June 17, 2004

REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 13–42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Scholten, Bisdikian, Dureau,
and Margulis. Final Act. 3–16.

OPINION
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of Appellant’s arguments and evidence.
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

3 All citations to the references use the first-named inventor or author only.
Appeal 2018-009225
Application 13/411,323

4
Independent claim 13 recites, in part, “converting, by at least one
processor of the content delivery system, audio/video (AV) content of a
second television channel of the demultiplexed content to a second transport
stream; and streaming the second transport stream to the mobile device.”
Appeal Br. 23. The Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Scholten,
Bisdikian, Dureau, and Margulis to teach the limitation at issue. Final
Act. 2–9.
The Examiner finds “Scholten discloses . . . content relating to at least
one television channel of the demultiplexed content corresponds to
connection data, wherein it [the connection data content] is converted to a
second transport stream 16 by TX 40 to be transmitted to a portable
communications device 18.” Final Act. 4 (citing Scholten ¶¶ 75, 57).
The Examiner finds “Bisdikian discloses an invention wherein a
mobile device receives broadcast data comprising TV broadcast from a set-
top box (para [0033]) and wherein the set-top box converts DVB [digital
video broadcast] data received from a network to a communication protocol
utilized by both the set-top box and the mobile device” but “does not
explicitly state that disclosed additional information is AV content.” Final
Act. 4 (citing Bisdikian ¶¶ 32, 33).
The Examiner finds “Dureau teaches that content may be multiplexed
into a signal for presentation by the receiver 12 to a plurality of devices” and
a broadcast station 16 or other service provider is configured to push data in
a single format. Final Act. 6 (citing Dureau ¶¶ 37–39). “A person of
ordinary skill would not readily assume that data sources would be limited to
data that was not audio/video in light of teachings gleaned from the prior art
disclosure of Dureau.” Id. at 5 (citing Dureau ¶ 38, Fig. 4).
Appeal 2018-009225
Application 13/411,323

5
The Examiner finds Margulis discloses “that a first channel is
displayed on a first television screen and a second channel is displayed on a
device that is different that the first television screen.” Final Act. 7 (citing
Margulis ¶¶ 43, 45–48).
The Examiner determines that motivation existed to combine the
teachings of Scholten, Bisdikian, Dureau, and Margulis. Final Act. 8–9.
Appellant argues claim 13 as representative and thus argues the claims
as a group. Appeal Br. 15. We, therefore, select claim 13 as representative
of the claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017). Appellant presents
several arguments against the obviousness rejection. We do not find
Appellant’s arguments persuasive. Instead, we find the Examiner has
provided a comprehensive rejection and response to Appellant’s arguments
supported by the evidence. Final Act. 2–9; Ans. 3–26. As such, to the
extent consistent with our analysis, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and
explanations. Id.
Appellant argues that the cited combination fails to teach or suggest
“converting, by at least one processor of the content delivery system,
audio/video (AV) content of a second television channel of the
demultiplexed content to a second transport stream; and streaming the
second transport stream to the mobile device,” as recited in claim 13.
Specifically, Appellant argues “[t]he ancillary data in Scholten is not
‘audio/video (AV) content of a [ ] television channel,’ as recited. Instead,
Scholten discloses ‘the delivery of content with connection data’ (Scholten
at ¶ 56), and the connection data in Scholten is nothing more than a
conventional URL.” Appeal Br. 9.
Appeal 2018-009225
Application 13/411,323

6
Appellant’s argument that Scholten does not teach AV content of a
television channel (Id.), based on Scholten alone, is unpersuasive because
the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Scholten, Bisdikian,
Dureau, and Margulis rather than Scholten alone to teach the limitation at
issue, and therefore the argument is not responsive to the rejection. See
Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1336–37
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (rejecting argument directed at the wrong reference). The
Examiner finds Scholten teaches converting and streaming demultiplexed
content in a transport stream to a mobile device, and relies on Bisdikian,
Dureau, and Margulis to specifically teach AV content that is a second
television channel. Of particular relevance, the Examiner’s finds that
Scholten’s Fig. 2 and corresponding text disclose streaming ancillary content
to mobile device 18. See Final Act. 4 (“Scholten discloses converting
content relating to at least one television channel of the demultiplexed
content . . . to a second transport stream; and streaming the second transport
stream to the mobile device.”). Scholten’s Fig. 2 reproduced below, shows
“a system for the enabling of access to data services.” Scholten ¶ 70.

Appeal 2018-009225
Application 13/411,323

7
FIG. 2 depicts a system that includes “a content provider 10 coupled
by a link 12 to a consumer electronics device 14” namely a “set top box.”
Id. at ¶ 72. Content provider 10 provides content 24 such as “television or
radio programmes” and “includes a source of connection data 26 which
connection data identifies a source of further information ancillary to the
subject matter of respective items or sources of the content from source 24.”
Id. The Examiner finds this ancillary information (connection data 42) to
teach ancillary content. Ans. 10. “This conjoined content [24] and
connection data 32 is delivered via the link 12” to set top box 14. Id. Set
top box 14 separately extracts content 24 and connection data 32. Id. at
¶¶ 74, 75. Set top box 14 provides content 24 to a presentation means 72,
which outputs the content as AV data for listening or viewing by a user. Id.
at ¶ 74. Meanwhile, “the connection data 42 [ancillary content] is output via
a data transmitter 40 of the consumer electronics device 14 and from there
transmitted via link 16 to a receiver 48 in portable communications device
18.” Id. at ¶ 75.
Although Appellant argues the connection data 42 provided to mobile
18 via link 16 is not content but rather is ancillary data such as a URL or
network address that allows mobile 18 to link to service provider 20 to
obtain additional data (Appeal Br. 16), Appellant fails to adequately explain
why the Examiner’s interpretation of connection data 42 as ancillary content
is unreasonably broad or inconsistent with the meaning of the term content
in Appellant’s Specification. See Spec. ¶ 33 (describing content sent to
handheld devices as data “composed solely of co-cast packets that were
requested by each handheld device.”).

Appeal 2018-009225
Application 13/411,323

8
Appellant’s related argument that Scholten does not teach AV content
of a television channel is unpersuasive because the argument does not
address the Examiner finding that Bisdikian teaches AV data “in light of
teachings gleaned from the prior art disclosure of Dureau.” Final Act. 4–5
(citing Bisdikian ¶¶ 32, 33, Dureau ¶ 38, Fig. 4).
Appellant argues that “there is no suggestion that the ancillary data
could have been modified to be ‘audio/video (AV) content of a second
television channel of the demultiplexed content.’” Reply Br. 6. Appellant’s
argument that the combination lacks the required suggestion or motivation to
modify Scholten is not persuasive of error because Appellant does not
address the motivations identified by the Examiner to modify Scholten based
on the combined teachings of Bisdikian and Dureau. Final Act. 5–7.
Appellant next argues that Bisdikian does not teach or suggest
providing AV content because Bisdikian instead discloses “providing
additional information (e.g., e-commerce information) that is included in a
signal to a portable device.” Appeal Br. 16.
This argument is unpersuasive because Appellant does not address the
Examiner’s finding that Bisdikian’s transmitting of a transport stream
including DVB (digital video broadcast data) to both the set-top box and
mobile devices 201 and 401 teaches streaming AV content to a mobile
device. Final Act. 4 (citing Bisdikian ¶¶ 32, 33). In addition, Appellant fails
to demonstrate why Bisdikian’s wireless transmission of MPEG-encoded
DVB data to mobile devices 201 and 401 by MPEG demultiplexer 805 fails
to teach or suggest streaming AV content to a mobile device. See Bisdikian
Fig. 8 (corresponding to ¶¶ 32–35 cited by the Examiner at Final Act. 4).
Appeal 2018-009225
Application 13/411,323

9
Appellant further argues Bisdikian’s content “is not ‘audio/video
(AV) content of a second television channel’ via ‘streaming . . . to the
mobile device,’ as recited.” Appeal Br. 17. This argument, based solely on
Bisdikian, is not responsive to the rejection because the Examiner relies on
the combined teachings of Bisdikian, Dureau, and Margulis, rather than
Bisdikian alone, to teach the argued limitation. Final Act. 2–9.
Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive. Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd., 357 F.3d
at 1336–37.
Next, in response to the Examiner’s finding that “Margulis teaches
that a first channel is displayed on a first television screen and a second
channel is displayed on a device that is different that the first television
screen” (Final Act. 7 (citing ¶¶ 43, 45–48)) Appellant argues “Margulis does
not enable ‘each target device can receive different content from different
channels’ (Final Office Action at ¶ 1, p. 2)” because
to the extent Margulis describes viewing of different content on
different devices, Margulis is merely describing functionality to
“preview various different selectable program sources 112.” As
noted above, such program sources are different sources (see
e.g., Margulis at ¶ 36 discussing PC, CD/DVD, cable TV, media
server, VCR, satellite, etc.), which are not “audio/video (AV)
content of a second television channel of the demultiplexed
content.”
Appeal Br. 17–18; Reply Br. 8–9.
This argument is unpersuasive because Appellant does not address the
Examiner-cited portion of Margulis that teaches each of the program sources
such as cable TV 122, terrestrial antenna 128, and satellite dish 134 is
capable of transmitting multiples channels of television. Final Act. 8 (citing
Margulis Fig. 1); see also ¶ 38 (teaching program sources 112 may consist
Appeal 2018-009225
Application 13/411,323

10
of different channels by describing in Fig. 1 that “video channel guide
information may be provided as a program source 112.”). “[T]he question
under [35 U.S.C. § 103(a)] is not merely what the references expressly teach
but what they would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made.” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, Inc.,
874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (emphasis added) (quoting In re
Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1976); see also Manual Patent
Examining Procedure, “MPEP” § 2123. We agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Margulis’s discussion of providing program sources 112
comprised of multiple channels to primary TV 152 and remote TV 158
teaches, or at least suggests, providing different television channel data to
different devices. See Final Act. 7 (“first channel is displayed on a first
television screen and a second channel is displayed on a device that is
different that the first television screen”). Moreover, Appellant’s argument
based on Margulis alone is unpersuasive because it fails to address the
Examiner’s reliance on the combined teachings of Scholten and Bisdikian to
teach “audio/video (AV) content of a second television channel,” as recited
in claim 13.
Appellant further argues “the rejections are, in effect, based on the
assertion that it would have been obvious to have modified the system of
Scholten to have transmitted the content (e.g., Content 1, Content 2, and
Content 3), which is destined for a television, to a mobile device” and “even
if Scholten could have somehow been modified as alleged in the Examiner’s
Answer, there is still no suggestion that a transport stream is demultiplexed.”
Reply Br. 4, 6.
Appeal 2018-009225
Application 13/411,323

11
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner relies on
Scholten’s ancillary content 42 sent to mobile device 18, not Content 1–3
destined for TV/set top box 14, to teach or suggest streaming content to the
mobile device, as recited in claim 1. Ans. 10. Also, Appellant fails to
specifically address the Examiner’s finding that Scholten’s set top box 14
demultiplexes content received from content provider 10 in view of the
teachings of Dureau. Final Act. 4, 6 (citing Scholten ¶¶ 57, 72, 75, Dureau
¶¶ 37–39, Figs. 3–5). Moreover, Appellant’s argument based on Scholten is
not responsive to the rejection, because the Examiner relies on the combined
teachings of Scholten, Bisdikian, Dureau, and Margulis, rather than Scholten
alone, to teach the limitation at issue. Final Act. 2–9. Accordingly, this
argument is unpersuasive. Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd., 357 F.3d at 1336–37.
Appellant further argues that
[a]t pages 15 and 16 of the Examiner’s Answer, the rejections are
based on the assertion that Dureau teaches “converting and
streaming content to a mobile device.” Indeed Dureau describes
transmitting additional interactive content, which is
supplemental to the broadcast content, to the mobile device. See
Appeal Brief at § IV.A.3.c. However, the content streamed to
the mobile device is not “audio/video (AV) content of a second
television channel of the demultiplexed content.” See Id.
Reply Br. 8.
This argument is unpersuasive because Appellant fails to address all
of the Examiner’s findings. The portions of Dureau cited by the Examiner
describe that “a broadcast station 16 or other service provider is configured
to push data in a single format” to “multiple devices in parallel” including a
mobile device (PDA 352A). Dureau ¶ 37. In addition, Dureau discloses a
Appeal 2018-009225
Application 13/411,323

12
set-top box (NG Receiver 340) transmitting a television audio/video signal
(AV data) to mobile device PDA 352A. Dureau ¶ 37, Fig. 3.
Of particular relevance, Dureau states that
receiver 340 may be configured to receive a television
audio/video signal and convey the received signal to television
357. However, in addition to conveying the signal to television,
receiver 340 may be configured to automatically transcode the
signal to a format compatible with PDA 352E and continuously
transmit the trancoded signal in parallel with the television
signal.
Dureau ¶ 37, describing Fig. 3 (cited at Final Act. 6). Accordingly,
Appellant’s argument that Dureau only describes transmitting content that is
supplemental to the broadcast content is unpersuasive because Dureau
describes transmitting television audio/video content to a mobile device.
We, therefore, agree with the Examiner’s finding that “Dureau further
renders obvious the elements not explicitly disclosed in Scholten and
Bisdikian.” Ans. 15. Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that “[a]
person of ordinary skill would not readily assume that data sources would be
limited to data that was not audio/video in light of teachings gleaned from
the prior art disclosure of Dureau” and that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably
inferred that the PDA 353E and the television are not limited to
watching the same channel because a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have understood that content multiplexed into a
signal is not limited to multiplexing one particular channel.”

Final Act. 5, 6 (citing Dureau ¶¶ 37–38, Fig. 4).
In summary, Appellant’s arguments attack the references individually,
rather than addressing the combined teachings of the references. See In re
Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We, therefore,
Appeal 2018-009225
Application 13/411,323

13
find unpersuasive Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has not shown
the cited combination teaches “converting, by at least one processor of the
content delivery system, audio/video (AV) content of a second television
channel of the demultiplexed content to a second transport stream; and
streaming the second transport stream to the mobile device,” as recited in
claim 13.
For the reasons discussed, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative claim 13.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, as well as
independent claims 19 and 33, and dependent claims 14–18, 20–32, and 34–
42, which Appellant does not argue separately. Appeal Br. 8.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13–42 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Scholten,
Bisdikian, Dureau, and Margulis.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed
13–42 103(a) Scholten, Bisdikian,
Dureau, Margulis
13–42

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED