Stephen Allinson et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 28, 2020

14862772 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 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.
14/862,772 09/23/2015 Stephen Allinson 102005.021740 7343
71581 7590 01/28/2020
BakerHostetler / Comcast
Cira Centre, 12th Floor
2929 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891
EXAMINER
CORBO, NICHOLAS T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2020 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):
eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
______________

Ex parte STEPHEN ALLINSON, BENNY PRUDEN,
JEFFREY WANNAMAKER, and DERIK YARNELL
_______________

Appeal 2018-007173
Application 14/862,772
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN A. EVANS, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.

Appeal 2018-007173
Application 14/862,772

2

Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 illustrates the invention as follows:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by one or more computing devices, content
from a first storage medium for playback, wherein the received
content comprises a stored first portion of a transport stream;
causing, by the one or more computing devices, playback
of at least a portion of the received content;
determining, by the one or more computing devices, a
playback position of the at least the portion of the received
content relative to a live position of the transport stream;
storing, by the one or more computing devices, a second
portion of the transport stream to the first storage medium if the
determined playback position of the at least a portion of the
received content does not satisfy a threshold proximity to the
live position; and
storing, by the one or more computing devices, the
second portion of the transport stream to a second storage
medium if the determined playback position of the at least a
portion of the received content satisfies the threshold proximity
to the live position.
Rejections
The Examiner has rejected:
Claims 1–4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Shaool et al., (US 2015/0181273 A1, published June 25,
2015) (hereinafter “Shaool”) in view of Walker et al. (US 2012/0321278 A1,
published Dec. 20, 2012) (hereinafter “Walker”). Final Act. 4.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Shaool in view of Walker, and further in view of Morris et al. (US
2008/0229353 A1, published Sept. 18, 2008) (hereinafter “Morris”). Final
Act. 7.
Appeal 2018-007173
Application 14/862,772

3

Claims 8–12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Shaool in view of Walker, and further in view of Patel et
al. (US 2009/0193486 A1, published July 30, 2009) (hereinafter “Patel”).
Final Act. 7.
Claims 13 and 16–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Shaool in view of Walker, Patel, and further in view of
Molaro et al. (US 2008/0168108 A1, published July 10, 2008) (hereinafter
“Molaro”). Final Act. 9.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Shaool in view of Walker, Patel, and further in view of Morris et al. (US
2008/0229353 A1, published Sept. 18, 2008) (hereinafter “Morris”). Final
Act. 11.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Shaool in view of Walker, Patel, Molaro, and further in view of Morris.
Final Act. 12.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia (emphasis added),
storing, by the one or more computing devices, a second
portion of the transport stream to the first storage medium if the
determined playback position of the at least a portion of the received
content does not satisfy a threshold proximity to the live position; and
storing, by the one or more computing devices, the second portion of
the transport stream to a second storage medium if the determined
playback position of the at least a portion of the received content
satisfies the threshold proximity to the live position.”2 (hereinafter
“threshold proximity” limitation).

2 Claims 8 and 16 recite similar subject matter.
Appeal 2018-007173
Application 14/862,772

4

The Examiner relied upon the wording of “may” in Shaool and finds
“Appellant also ignores the fact that Shaool states specifically that packets
‘may be stored in the transport stream buffer’ in Paragraph 0055 of Shaool.
This is most certainly not an explicit teaching of ‘always storing’.” Ans. 3
(boldface omitted).
Appellant argues Shaool does not teach the claimed threshold
proximity limitation. Appeal Br. 3–5; Reply Br. 2.
In particular, Appellant argues, and we agree,
However, Shaool teaches unconditionally storing the transport
stream packets in the transport stream buffer before sending the
transport stream packets to the CAM. See Shaool para. [0055].
Moreover, Shaool does not teach the storing being based on the
condition recited in claim 1: whether “the determined playback
position of the at least a portion of the received content satisfies
the threshold proximity to the live position.” The Examiner has
not provided particular findings as to the reason a skilled
artisan, with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would
have modified Shaool to condition the storing on “the
determined playback position of the at least a portion of the
received content” satisfying “the threshold proximity to the live
position,” as [recited] in claim 1.

Reply Br. 2.
We agree with Appellant’s interpretation of the disclosure of Shaool.
See Appeal Br. 3–5; Reply Br. 2. We also agree that Walker does not cure
the deficiencies of Shaool. See Appeal Br. 6–7; Reply Br. 3. We conclude
that the Examiner’s findings are not supported by Shaool and Walker for the
reasons set forth by Appellant.
Therefore, on this record, we find the weight of the evidence supports
the positions articulated by Appellant in the briefs. Accordingly, as such, we
cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 8, and 16. Because we
Appeal 2018-007173
Application 14/862,772

5

reverse the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 16 on appeal, we also
reverse the rejections of dependent claims 2–7, 9–15, and 17–20 which
depend on claims 1, 8, or 16 respectively.

CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6, 7 103 Shaool, Walker 1–4, 6, 7
5 103 Shaool, Walker,
Morris
5
8–12, 15 103 Shaool, Walker,
Patel
8–12, 15
13, 16–
19
103 Shaool, Walker,
Patel, Molaro
13, 16–
19
14 103 Shaool, Walker,
Patel, Morris
14
20 103 Shaool, Walker,
Patel, Molaro,
Morris
20
Overall
Outcome
1–20
Appeal 2018-007173
Application 14/862,772

6

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 is reversed.
REVERSED