Mao, Weidong et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 27, 2020

13799964 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 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.
13/799,964 03/13/2013 Weidong Mao 26141.0088U1 7799
16000 7590 01/27/2020
Comcast
c/o Ballard Spahr LLP
999 Peachtree Street, Suite 1000
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
ZARRINEH, SHAHRIAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2497
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/27/2020 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):
USpatentmail@ballardspahr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WEIDONG MAO, ELAD NAFSHI, MARK ANDREW
VICKERS, GREGORY ALLEN BROOME, and SREE KOTAY
Appeal 2019-001726
Application 13/799,964
Technology Center 2400
Before BRYAN F. MOORE, BETH Z. SHAW, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. See Final Act. 1. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Comcast Cable
Communications, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-001726
Application 13/799,964
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a methods and systems for managing data
assets. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter, with the disputed limitation in italics:
1. A method comprising:
generating an access token associated with a particular
data asset and representing access rights of a user;
receiving a request for access to the particular data asset,
wherein the request indicates a requested quality level of the
particular data asset;
weighting, based on the requested quality level, the
request for access;
determining, based on the access token, a dynamic
threshold number of requests for access to the particular data
asset permitted to the user, wherein the dynamic threshold is
based on a time the request for access was received, and wherein
the dynamic threshold number of requests for access to the
particular data asset is more than one;
granting, based upon the access rights of the user, the
request, wherein granting the request is dependent upon not
exceeding the dynamic threshold number of requests for access
to the particular data asset based on the weighted request for
access; and
in response to granting the request, modifying the access
token.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Weigle US 8,478,693 B1 July 2, 2013
Yin US 2013/0152221 A1 June 13, 2013

Appeal 2019-001726
Application 13/799,964
3
REJECTION
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35.U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yin and Weigle.
OPINION
Appellant argues Yin and Weigle fail to teach “weighting, based on
the requested quality level, the request for access,” recited in claim 1. In
particular, Appellant argues that Yin at most teaches allowing access to
content if the maximum number of allowed viewings is not met, as well as
denying access to the content if the user does not have the appropriate access
type. Appeal Br. 6.
The Examiner finds that paragraph 63 of the Specification clarifies the
claim limitations. Paragraph 63 of Specification states:
In step 610, if the number of access requests does not exceed an
access threshold or the threshold exceeds the number of access
requests, one or more subsequent access requests can be granted. The
access threshold can be pre-defined or dynamic. The access threshold
can be based upon a related content asset or user, wherein different
content assets, users, or receiving devices can have different access
thresholds associated therewith. In an aspect, the type of access
request can have a variable weight associated therewith. For example,
a request for streaming standard definition video can be weighted as a
single request, while a request for streaming high definition video can
be weighted as two requests. Various weighting techniques and values
can be based upon types of content, duration of content, type
of access requested, time of day, location of receiving device, type of
receiving device, class of user, subscription package, and other
criteria.
Spec. ¶ 63 (emphasis added).
The Examiner concludes that under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, “weighting the request for access based on a requested quality
level” is about the kind of subscription package the user has and a particular
level of quality of content view the user has subscribed to. Ans. 4. Yin
Appeal 2019-001726
Application 13/799,964
4
teaches that “entitlement rights manager 520 may determine whether user
device 170 is entitled to play the content at a particular quality (e.g., high
definition) (block 1118)” and “[t]he quality may depend on the package to
which the user of user device 170 is subscribed (weighting)].” Ans. 4 (citing
Yin ¶¶ 100, 106).
Appellant argues “granting or denying a request based on what a user
is allowed to access does not weight the requests because each request is
treated exactly the same.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant argues Yin teaches
“treating each request exactly the same, regardless of what the request
entails, to determine different outcomes (e.g., whether the request for
content will be granted or denied) based upon different factors associated
with a user’s subscription package.” Id.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that the independent claims do
not recite a “subscription package,” or the content that “the user has
subscribed” to, and Appellant argues that the Examiner therefore improperly
imports limitations from the specification into the claims. Reply Br. 3.
First, we note that “during examination proceedings, claims are given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In
re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
“‘It is axiomatic that, in proceedings before the [Patent and
Trademark Office], claims in an application are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, [ ] and that claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831,
833 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (quoting In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548 (Fed. Cir.
1983) (citations omitted).)
Appeal 2019-001726
Application 13/799,964
5
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because Appellant
provides insufficient evidence proving that the Specification or claims limit
“weighting, based on the requested quality level, the request for access” in a
way that, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, is not encompassed by
Yin’s teaching of determining whether the user device is entitled to play the
content at a particular quality, which may depend on the package to which
the user is subscribed. Yin ¶ 100; see also Yin. Fig. 11.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner has improperly imported
limitations from the Specification into the claim. Rather, the Examiner reads
the claim language in light of the Specification as it would be interpreted by
one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that a subscription package is an
example of something a weighting technique can be based on, as described
in Appellant’s Specification. See Spec. ¶ 63 (“Various weighting techniques
can be based upon . . . subscription package . . . .”). The Examiner’s
interpretation does not limit the claim to weighting techniques that are only
based on a subscription, but rather, the Examiner finds that Lin teaches an
example of the claimed weighting, thus rendering the limitation obvious.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the
rejection of claims 2–20, for which Appellant presents no additional
arguments.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
Appeal 2019-001726
Application 13/799,964
6
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103(a) Yin, Weigle 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