CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS OPERATING, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 27, 2021

2020000065 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2021)

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.
15/008,438 01/27/2016 Daniel Graham CHTR-2015-06NP 3856
14333 7590 04/27/2021
Meagher Emanuel Laks Goldberg & Liao, LLP
ONE PALMER SQUARE
SUITE 325
PRINCETON, NJ 08542
EXAMINER
RABOVIANSKI, JIVKA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2021 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):
14333-docket@meagheremanuel.com
molech@meagheremanuel.com
tmeagher@meagheremanuel.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DANIEL GRAHAM, ROB MARTEL, ANGELA MITCHEL,
CHRISTINE HAEFLING, PETER BROWN, and RICH DIGERONIMO
___________

Appeal 2020-000065
Application 15/008,438
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ERIC B. CHEN, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2020-000065
Application 15/008,438

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 19–30, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. (Appeal Br. 4.) Claims 1–18 have been
cancelled. (Id.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter is directed to a method and system for
streaming content to client devices. (Abstract.)
Claim 19, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter, with disputed limitations in italics:
19. A system including provider equipment operatively
coupled to client devices for propagating content toward
authorized client devices, comprising:
a computer implemented services platform configured to
receive client device data, to authenticate client devices, to
receive client device content requests, and to cause a content
delivery network CDN to transmit requested content to an
authorized client device;
wherein the services platform is configured to determine
that an authenticated client device registered to a first subscriber
account is located at a subscriber location associated with a
second subscriber account and, without additional client device
input, to reregister the authenticated client device to the second
subscriber account such that the authenticated client device may
be provided with respective second subscriber account

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 Charter
Communications Operating, LLC. (Appeal Br. 4.)
Appeal 2020-000065
Application 15/008,438

3
authorized services at the subscriber location associated with the
second subscriber.
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Hasek US 2008/0209491 A1 Aug. 28, 2008
Johansson et al. US 2012/0084803 A1 Apr. 5, 2012
Prakash et al. US 2013/0347025 Al Dec. 26, 2013

REJECTIONS
Claims 19–23 and 25–30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Prakash and Hasek. (Final Act. 2–6.)2
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Prakash, Hasek, and Johansson. (Id. at 6–7.)

OPINION
§ 103 Rejection—Prakash and Hasek
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 15) that the
combination of Prakash and Hasek would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 19, which includes the limitation “to determine that an
authenticated client device registered to a first subscriber account is located
at a subscriber location associated with a second subscriber account and,
without additional client device input, to reregister the authenticated client
device to the second subscriber account.”
The Examiner found that Local Client Device (LCD) or Customer
Premises Equipment (CPE) 106 of Hasek, in which subscribers can access
reservation information for programming content from their premises or “on

2 Although the statement of the rejection omits claims 25–30, the body of
the rejection discusses the cited claims.
Appeal 2020-000065
Application 15/008,438

4
the road,” and “bundling” the services of Hasek, in which the subscriber’s
mobile device is billed to the cable network, collectively correspond to the
limitation “to determine that an authenticated client device registered to a
first subscriber account is located at a subscriber location associated with a
second subscriber account and, without additional client device input, to
reregister the authenticated client device to the second subscriber account.”
(Final Act. 3–4, Ans. 9.) We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Hasek relates to “methods that allow a user (e.g., cable or satellite
network subscriber) to access content, such as a video program, from a
location outside the subscriber’s network” (Abstract), in particular, “a need
to permit data such as content reservation information entered by a
subscriber to ‘roam’; i.e., not be tied to the subscriber's premises device(s).”
(¶ 21). Figure 3A of Hasek illustrates method 330 for caching information,
such that “a remote cache might be disposed at the headend 150, a BSA
switching node, a mobile device (e.g., the subscriber’s laptop computer,
PDA, or cellular telephone), mobile or portable storage device (e.g., USB
key), a web server, etc.” (¶ 224 (citation omitted).) Moreover, Hasek
explains the following:
[T]he transmission of reservation information may be mirrored
by data maintained on the [LCD] or CPE 106. So, for example,
when a subscriber is on the road during a given period, they can
access the reservation information remotely (i.e., from the
server), as well as from their premises when they return, without
the two conflicting.
(¶ 237.) In addition, Hasek explains that “[t]he on-demand content provided
to a subscriber’s mobile device can be billed to the same [multiple system
operator] account held by the subscriber for the cable network services
provided to the subscriber’s premises” and “[t]his allows for a convenient
Appeal 2020-000065
Application 15/008,438

5
‘bundling’ of services, obviating a need to pay for access to this additional
on-demand content on a separate bill or billing account.” (¶ 164.)
Although the Examiner cited to: (i) LCD or CPE 106 of Hasek, which
retains content reservation information, permitting subscribers to “roam”;
and (ii) “bundling” mobile device with cable network services of Hasek, the
Examiner have provided insufficient evidence to support a finding that
Hasek teaches the limitation “to determine that an authenticated client
device registered to a first subscriber account is located at a subscriber
location associated with a second subscriber account and, without additional
client device input, to reregister the authenticated client device to the second
subscriber account.” In particular, Hasek is silent with respect to a “first
subscriber account” a “second subscriber account,” much less the limitation
“a subscriber location associated with a second subscriber account and,
without additional client device input, to reregister the authenticated client
device to the second subscriber account.” Therefore, on this record, the
Examiner has not demonstrated that Hasek teaches the limitation “wherein
the services platform is configured to determine that an authenticated client
device registered to a first subscriber account is located at a subscriber
location associated with a second subscriber account and, without additional
client device input, to reregister the authenticated client device to the second
subscriber account.” Moreover, the Examiner’s application of Prakash does
not cure the above noted deficiencies of Hasek.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments as follows:
Hasek simply does not teach or disclose or even
contemplate in any way the notion of operations involving two
subscriber accounts, much less “reregister[ing an] authenticated
client device to the second subscriber account” such that the
Appeal 2020-000065
Application 15/008,438

6
device receives “respective second subscriber account
authorized services” as claimed.
. . . .
Hasek teaches enabling a user to receive content from
various locations via a local client device (LCD) such as a set top
box, a laptop and the like. As noted in paragraph [0233], a LCD
of a user “on the road” (i.e., at a remote location) may be
automatically recognized via device address or other LCD-linked
mechanism. That is, the device associated with the user is
recognized for purposes of retrieving reservation information for
content the user is allowed to receive in accordance with the
user's account/subscription. As noted in paragraph [0234], the
reservation information defining content the user is allowed to
receive may be defined by location alone.
(Appeal Br. 15 (emphasis omitted).)
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 20–23, 25, and 26 depend from claim 19. We do
not sustain the rejection of claims 20–23, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 19.
Independent claims 27, 29, and 30 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to claim 19. We do not sustain the rejection of claims
27, 29, and 30, as well as dependent claim 28, for the same reasons
discussed with respect to claim 19.

§ 103 Rejection—Prakash, Hasek, and Johansson
Claim 24 depends from independent claim 19. The Examiner cited
Johansson for teaching the additional features of claim 24. (Final Act. 6–7.)
However, the Examiner’s application of Johansson does not cure the above
noted deficiencies of Prakash and Hasek.

Appeal 2020-000065
Application 15/008,438

7
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 19–30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
DECISION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
19–23,
25–30
103 Prakash, Hasek 19–23,
25–30
24 103 Prakash, Hasek,
Johansson
24
Overall
Outcome
19–30

REVERSED