COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 20, 2020

2019001959 (P.T.A.B. May. 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.
13/826,090 03/14/2013 Leslie Eugene Chipman 007412.01596 8306
71867 7590 05/20/2020
BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD
ATTORNEYS FOR CLIENT NUMBER 007412
1100 13th STREET, N.W.
SUITE 1200
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-4051
EXAMINER
MONSHI, SAMIRA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/20/2020 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):
PTO-71867@bannerwitcoff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LESLIE EUGENE CHIPMAN, AMIT BAGGA, JENNY JIANG,
ANITA ERADLA, and SCOT ZOLA

Appeal 2019-001959
Application 13/826,090
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before GREGG I. ANDERSON, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Comcast Cable Communications,
LLC (“Appellant”) appeals the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6,
7, 10, 12–16, and 19–26, which are all of the pending claims.1 See Appeal
Br. 6–18; Final Act. 1–24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use “Appellant” to refer to the “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Comcast Cable
Communications, LLC, a subsidiary of Comcast Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-001959
Application 13/826,090

2
Introduction
The Specification states there is
an ever-present need to provide more useful tools to viewers so
that they may be presented with information about content,
such as a television program, that enables the viewers to learn
of a development or event in the content or enables the viewers
to switch to content that is more immediately of interest to
them.

Spec. ¶ 3.
Claims 1, 6, and 12 are independent, of which claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
identifying, from video content, video segments that
depict a plurality of events matching event criteria;
combining the video segments into a sequence of the
video segments;
storing the sequence of the video segments to a location;
determining an identifier or a link, the identifier or the
link being configured to enable the sequence of the video
segments to be requested;
generating an event message that alerts a user to an
occurrence of the plurality of events and that comprises the
identifier or the link;
transmitting the event message to a second device;
receiving, after transmitting the event message to the
second device, from the second device, a request for the
sequence of the video segments that comprises the identifier or
the link;
transmitting, to the second device, the sequence of the
video segments as a response to the request for the sequence of
the video segments;
receiving, from the second device, a command to
transmit the sequence of the video segments to a first device;
and
Appeal 2019-001959
Application 13/826,090

3
transmitting, to the first device, at least a portion of the
sequence of the video segments as a response to the command.
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App’x).
The Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, and 24–26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Chapman (US 2006/0200842 A1; pub. Sept. 7, 2006),
Maharajh (US 2011/0225417 A1; pub. Sept. 15, 2011), and Hedge (US
2009/ 0288132 A1; pub. Nov. 19, 2009). Final Act. 2–8.
The Examiner rejected claims 6, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Chapman and Hedge. Final Act. 8–16.
The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Chapman, Maharajh, Hedge, and Packard (US 2014/0359662 A1; pub. Dec.
4, 2014). Final Act. 16–18.
The Examiner rejected claims 7, 19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over Chapman, Hedge, and Packard. Final Act. 18–21.
The Examiner rejected claims 14, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Chapman, Hedge, and Gutowski (US 2006/0105793 A1; pub.
May 18, 2006). Final Act. 21–24.
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends, inter alia,2 the Examiner errs in relying on the
combination of Chapman, Maharaj, and Hegde. Appeal Br. 11. Hegde is
relied on for teaching the disputed limitations of “receiving, from the second
device, a command to transmit the sequence of the video segments to a first
device; and transmitting, to the first device, at least a portion of the sequence

2 We reverse the Examiner based on a dispositive issue and, therefore, we
do not address all of Appellant’s arguments.
Appeal 2019-001959
Application 13/826,090

4
of the video segments as a response to the command,” as recited in each of
the independent claims. Final Act. 6 (claim 1), 10–11 (claim 6), and 13
(claim 12); see also Ans. 4–6. Appellant argues that the combination of
references would not make sense for a number of reasons. Appeal Br. 11–
12. Appellant’s argument is persuasive.
In rejecting the independent claims, the Examiner finds Chapman
teaches transmitting “an event message that alerts a user to an occurrence of
[a] plurality of events” depicted in “a sequence of video segments” as recited
in claim 1 and as similarly recited in claims 6 and 24. Final Act. 2–4 (claim
1), 8–10 (claim 6), and 11–12 (claim 12). We agree with the Examiner that
Chapman’s disclosure of techniques for “formulating picture-in-picture
(PIP) alerts based on the matching events, and providing the PIP alerts to the
consumer’s output device” (Chapman, Abstract; see also Fig.7) teaches
transmitting a message to alert a user to events depicted in a sequence of
video segments, as recited. Final Act. 3; see also Chapman ¶ 82 (explaining
that PIP alerts may be video streams).
In view of Chapman, the Examiner then finds Hegde’s disclosure for
controlling a television display using mobile devices teaches “receiving,
from the second device [(i.e., Hegde’s mobile phone 1)], a command to
transmit the sequence of the video segments to a first device [(i.e., Hegde’s
television 3)]; and transmitting, to the first device, at least a portion of the
sequence of the video segments as a response to the command.” See Final
Act. 6; Ans. 4–6. Hegde’s Figures 2 and 7, reproduced below, illustrate the
disclosure from Hegde upon which the Examiner relies:
Appeal 2019-001959
Application 13/826,090

5

Hegde Figure 2 shows mobile phones 1a and 1b that operate as remote
controllers for television 3 (with each mobile phone providing audio
corresponding to content displayed on the television, e.g., phone
1a providing audio for video image 301 and phone 2a providing
audio for video image 302). See Hegde ¶¶ 28–29.
Appeal 2019-001959
Application 13/826,090

6

Hegde “FIGS. 7A and 7B illustrate an operation between TV [700] and
mobile devices [705, 710] by transmission and receiving of messages.”
Hegde ¶ 73; see also id. ¶¶ 74–80.
We agree with Appellant that Hegde’s mobile phone messages to the
TV “are akin to tuning commands from a television remote control.” Appeal
Br. 11. As Hegde Figures 7A–B illustrate, its mobile devices send “Action”
messages (commands) to the television to “Change Channel” and “switch to
pic in pic,” with the only data provided with the commands being a channel
number. See Hegde ¶¶ 73–80. A TV’s receiving of a command designating
a channel number to use does not constitute “receiving, from the second
device” (i.e., Hegde’s mobile phone) “a command to transmit the sequence
of the video segments to a first device” (i.e., the TV), as recited.
Appeal 2019-001959
Application 13/826,090

7
The Examiner’s stated rationale for combining Chapman and
Hegde—“to inform of the channel change to the mobile device” (Final Act.
6, 11, 13)—does not fill the gap in terms of explaining how or why, in view
Chapman’s PIP alerts that constitute “a sequence of video segments” that are
displayed on the TV, Hegde’s action messages for controlling which
channels the TV uses would have suggested receiving “a command to
transmit the sequence of the video segments,” as recited. Accordingly,
Appellant persuades us the Examiner errs in relying on Hegde for teaching
the disputed limitations. Furthermore, the Examiner has not sufficiently
explained how or why a person of ordinary skill with combine the teachings
of Hegde with Chapman.
CONCLUSION
We do not, therefore, sustain the § 103 rejections of the independent
claims 1, 6, and 12. We likewise do not sustain the § 103 rejections of their
dependent claims 2–4, 7, 10, 13–16, and 19–26.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Appeal 2019-001959
Application 13/826,090

8
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4,
24–26 103
Chapman, Maharajh,
Hegde
1, 2, 4, 24–26
6, 10, 12,
13, 15, 23 103 Chapman, Hegde
6, 10, 12, 13,
15, 23
3 103 Chapman, Maharajh, Hegde, Packard
3
7, 19, 21,
22 103
Chapman, Hegde,
Packard
7, 19, 21, 22
14, 16, 20 103 Chapman, Hegde, Gutowski
14, 16, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6, 7, 10, 12–16, 19–26

REVERSED