Gracenote, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 1, 2020

2019004501 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 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.
15/406,887 01/16/2017 Donald F. Gordon 17-383-US-CON2 9437
139404 7590 07/01/2020
McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP/Gracenote
300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
MENDOZA, JUNIOR O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2423
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2020 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 DONALD F. GORDON, MARKUS K. CREMER, and PETER
DUNKER
Appeal 2019-004501
Application 15/406,887
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, 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 1–20. An oral hearing took place on
June 10, 2020. A copy of the transcript will be placed in the record in due
course. 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). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Gracenote, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-004501
Application 15/406,887

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an authorizing devices based on identifying
content distributor. Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitation
in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
accessing multiple video streams, each video stream being
distributed by a different content distribution system among
multiple content distribution systems, each video stream
including same video content provided by a single content source
to the multiple content distribution systems and including
different distributor-specific content that is unique to the
corresponding content distribution system that distributes the
video stream, a video stream of the multiple video streams being
available from a content distribution system of the multiple
content distribution systems to a client device;
for each of the multiple video streams:
generating a set of reference fingerprints of the
distributor-specific content included within the video
stream accessed from the corresponding content
distribution system; and
associating the set of reference fingerprints with the
corresponding content distribution system that distributes
the video stream;
accessing a set of query fingerprints received from
the client device, the set of query fingerprints being
calculated from at least a portion of the distributor-specific
content playing at the client device;
querying a reference database that includes the sets
of reference fingerprints to identify a set of reference
fingerprints that corresponds to the set of query
fingerprints;
identifying the content distribution system among
the multiple content distribution systems and associated
with the set of reference fingerprints that corresponds to
Appeal 2019-004501
Application 15/406,887

3
the set of query fingerprints thereby to identify the content
distribution system providing the video stream to the client
device;
accessing information that identifies a location of
the client device; and
performing at least one action that is dependent
upon the content distribution system identified among the
multiple content distribution systems, wherein the at least
one action includes a location-based action that is
dependent upon the identified content distribution system
and that is further based upon the identified location of the
client device.
Appeal Br. 16–17 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:

Name Reference Date
Sinha US 2013/0205330 A1 Aug. 8, 2013
Shurm, Jr. (“Shrum”) US 2015/0106839 A1 Apr. 16, 2015

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sinha and Shrum. Final Act. 6.

ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding Sinha and Shrum teach or suggest
“performing at least one action that is dependent upon the content
distribution system identified among the multiple content distribution
Appeal 2019-004501
Application 15/406,887

4
systems, wherein the at least one action includes a location-based action that
is dependent upon the identified content distribution system and that is
further based upon the identified location of the client device,” as recited in
claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over Sinha and Shrum.
Relevant to this issue, the Examiner finds:
[Sinha teaches] performing at least one action that is dependent
upon the content distribution system identified among the
multiple content distribution systems (e.g. providers 104/503,
such as cable 1-5, satellite 5-6, etc.; figures 1 and 5), wherein the
at least one action includes a location-based action that is
dependent upon the identified content distribution system
(Paragraphs [0039] [0050] [0136] [0144] figures 4, 5 and 9;
authenticating user device for presenting a TV everywhere
service associated with the identified service provider. Wherein
the service provider is determined based on both a zip code
obtained from an IP address of the ACR-enabled connected TV
device and a channel lineup information identified by the ACR
system, e.g. fingerprint, paragraphs [0039] [0137]).
Final Act. 9 (citing Sinha ¶¶ 39, 50, 136, 144; Figs. 1, 4, 5, and 9). The
Examiner acknowledges that “Sinha is silent to explicitly disclose that the at
least one action includes a location-based action that is further based upon
the identified location of the client device.” Final Act. 9. The Examiner
addresses this deficiency with the teachings of Shrum, finding that:
Nevertheless, in a similar field of endeavor Shrum discloses that
the at least one action (e.g. authentication for access rights)
includes a location-based action that is further based upon the
identified location of the client device (Paragraphs [0004] [0069]
[0071] [0101] figure 1; determine whether the customer device
105a is located within a subscription area for the customer 126,
and based on that determination the content management server
Appeal 2019-004501
Application 15/406,887

5
110 may allow the customer device 105a access rights to the
desired content).
Final Act. 9. The Examiner reasons and concludes as follows:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to modify Sinha by
specifically providing the elements mentioned above, as taught
by Shrum, for the predictable result of allowing customers to use
a wide variety of different device types, e.g. tables, mobiles, etc.,
to access content from the distribution system within a
household, thereby enhancing the customer experience and
improving customer satisfaction (Shrum - paragraph [0003]).
Final Act. 10.
Appellant argues the Examiner has erred with respect to this
limitation. In particular, Appellant argues that determining the service
provider for a client device based on a zip code, as taught by Sinha, cannot
teach the limitation because it would, in effect, “amount to determining the
service provider based on the service provider.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant
further argues “contrary to the Examiner’s assertion, Sinha does not seem to
disclose authenticating the TV device based on the determining of the
service provider.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant further argues Sinha is deficient
because authentication of a user device, as taught by Sinha, cannot be an
action “based on the determining of the service provider.” Appeal Br. 8.
Specifically, Appellant asserts that Sinha’s account information is not used
to authenticate to the service provider, but instead is used to inform a
network provider that authentication has already occurred. Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant further contends that the combined teachings of Sinha and Shrum
are deficient because “even if it is known to conduct authentication action
based on location, what would still be missing is the authentication action
being done based on the identified content distribution system (service
Appeal 2019-004501
Application 15/406,887

6
provider).” Appeal Br. 10–11. According to Appellant, Shurm teaches that
“access control can be location-based and/or can be authentication based,”
but that Shurm does not disclose “that the authentication can be location-
based.” Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis added); see also Appeal Br. 14. We
disagree with Appellant’s arguments. We do not see any error in the
contested Examiner’s findings and reasons, and we concur with the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
The standard for determining whether a claim is obvious is “an
expansive and flexible approach.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 415 (2007). Here, Sinha teaches identifying the service provider using
information including a logo on the screen or a channel lineup (i.e., based on
a signature). Sinha ¶¶ 39. Sinha also teaches identifying the service
provider based on the location of the accessing device (i.e., based on
location). Id. Based on the identification of the service provider, Sinha
permits access to service provider content via a TV everywhere service.
Sinha ¶ 140 (“In step 703, the ACR module 142 may be operable to perform
an authentication for presenting content through a TV everywhere (TYE)
service associated with the identified network based on information
identified by the ACR system 100.”) Shrum teaches allowing access to
content based on the location of the device seeking to access, and
specifically based on the device being in a service area. Shrum ¶ 4.
The disputed limitation calls for performing an action based on
identity of the content distribution system and the location of the device.
Here, as we explained above, Shrum and Sinha both teach allowing access to
content (i.e. performing an action) based on certain conditions. Sinha
teaches permitting access to content through the TV everywhere service
Appeal 2019-004501
Application 15/406,887

7
based on the identity of the service provider (a content distribution system);
Shrum grants access to content based on the location of the device. As the
Examiner correctly explains in the Answer, the rejection is based on the
combined teachings of Sinha and Shrum. Ans. 12. Thus, taken together, we
agree with the Examiner that Sinha and Shrum collectively teach the
disputed limitation.
Appellant’s arguments focus on the location aspect of the disputed
limitation being absent from Sinha. However, as we note above, the
Examiner relies on Shrum, and not Sinha, as teaching the recited “location-
based action.” Moreover, to the extent Appellant challenges the Examiner’s
findings with respect Shrum, we agree with the explanation provided by the
Examiner that “Shrum clearly discloses that ‘the content management
module 168 may determine access rights based at least in part upon a
location determination associated with the requesting customer device.”
Ans. 17 (quoting Shrum ¶ 46).
Appellant also draws a distinction between authentication as taught by
Sinha and access control as taught by Shrum. We do not find this distinction
compelling because it overlooks that both references more generally teach
conditional access to content—based on the identity of the service provider
in the case of Sinha and on the location of the client device in the case of
Shrum. As noted by the Examiner in the Final Office Action, Sinha teaches
“authenticating a user device for presenting a TV everywhere service
associated with the identified service provider.” Final Act. 9. Thus, the
Examiner’s findings with respect to Sinha correctly observe that the
identified service provider is used as the basis for allowing access to the TV
everywhere service.
Appeal 2019-004501
Application 15/406,887

8
Remaining Claims
Appellant does not present separate arguments for patentability of any
other claim. As such, the remaining claims fall together with claim 1.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103(a) Sinha, Shurm 1–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED