COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2021

2020003416 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 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.
14/661,317 03/18/2015 Harry J. Reichert JR. 26141.0202U1 3631
16000 7590 09/02/2021
Comcast
c/o Ballard Spahr LLP
999 Peachtree Street, Suite 1600
Atlanta, GA 30309-4421
EXAMINER
TODD, GREGORY G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2457
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2021 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):
USpatentmail@ballardspahr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HARRY J. REICHERT
Appeal 2020-003416
Application 14/661,317
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., 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 1–4, 6–10, 12–18, and 20–23. 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
Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-003416
Application 14/661,317

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to methods and systems of content
optimization. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
generating a data sample of a content item as presented via
a first device, wherein the data sample is generated by an internal
component of the first device, and wherein the data sample
comprises current configuration settings of the first device;
transmitting, to a second device, the data sample;
receiving updated configuration settings, wherein the
updated configuration settings are determined by the second
device based on a comparison of predetermined reference data
with the data sample; and
updating the current configuration settings of the first
device with the updated configuration settings.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES2
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kang US 2013/0120330 A1 May 16, 2013
Tomay US 8,171,351 B1 May 1, 2012
REJECTION
Claims 1–4, 6–10, 12–18, and 20–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kang and Tomay. Final Act. 2–7.

2 Citations to the references are to the first named inventor/author only.
Appeal 2020-003416
Application 14/661,317

3
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding Kang and Tomay teach or suggest
“generating a data sample of a content item as presented via a first device,
wherein the data sample is generated by an internal component of the first
device, and wherein the data sample comprises current configuration settings
of the first device,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments set forth in the Appeal Brief. No Reply Brief has been filed. We
are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellant’s arguments. We adopt as
our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2–7) and (2) the findings,
reasons, and explanations set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's
Answer in response to Appellant's Brief (Ans. 2–10) and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over Kang and Tomay.
Final Act. 1. The Examiner relies primarily on Kang, finding that it teaches
all of the limitations except that “Kang fails to explicitly disclose wherein
the data sample is generated by an internal component of the first device,
and wherein the data sample comprises current configuration settings of the
first device.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner introduces Tomay to address
these deficiencies, finding that “Tomay discloses, in an analogous art, a user
device sending information reports to a server, such reports may include a
screenshot from the user device and listing of the configuration of the
Appeal 2020-003416
Application 14/661,317

4
device.” Final Act. 3 (citing Tomay col. 16, ll. 35–58, col. 18, ll. 21–27;
Fig. 10).
Appellant contends “Tomay does not cure the deficiencies of Kang”
because Tomay “at most teaches sending a request to a user device to take a
screenshot, and sending configuration settings to the user device.” Appeal
Br. 5. Appellant argues that because Tomay “at most teaches one device
taking a screenshot, and another device sending configuration settings,”
Tomay does not teach that the screenshot comprises configuration settings.”
Appeal Br. 6.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. In the Answer, the
Examiner explains that the scope of the argued limitation is broad, “with
only a data sample comprising current configuration settings of the first
device.” Ans. 4. The Examiner further explains that Appellant’s
Specification indicates “the data sample may be an image (see Kang) or
screenshot (see Tomay)” and that “under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, the current configuration settings can be determined from an
image itself as well as metadata of an image, or simply part of a data set
itself.” Ans. 5. We agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim.3
Under this interpretation, we agree with the Examiner that the
references teach or suggest the argued limitation. As explained by the
Examiner:
Kang teaches a device generating a data sample of a content
item as presented via a first device as Kang teaches a first device
100 having an original reference image output being displayed to
compare the output of the device to the known reference image

3 We note that Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief, so the Examiner’s
explanation set forth in the answer is unchallenged in this record.
Appeal 2020-003416
Application 14/661,317

5
(par. 65–67). Kang teaches capturing an image of the display of
the device 100 as presented via the first device (at least Fig. 2–3,
paragraph 67; camera photographs images displayed by mobile
device 100), and wherein the data sample comprises current
configuration settings of the first device (at least paragraph 73,
68; brightness level of images / receives the information
regarding brightness level from device 100. Kang explicitly
teaches that the second device receive at least “information
regarding a brightness level from the mobile device 100”. Kang
then teaches that based on the image, adjusted brightness levels
are transmitted from the second device to the mobile first device
to adjusts it's brightness (par. 40−41). Kang thus simply fails to
explicitly teach more than one setting (ie. Kang only teaches
brightness being modified) being received from the mobile
device and that the data sample is generated internally, ie. from
the processor/ screen capturing software of the mobile device.
Ans. 6–7.
Thus, as found by the Examiner, Kang’s only deficiencies are (1) that
it teaches only one configuration setting (brightness) being received from a
mobile device while the claim requires “configuration settings,” and (2) a
data sample that is generated internally.
We agree with the Examiner that Tomay remedies Kang’s
deficiencies because Tomay demonstrates that it was known in the art for
such data samples to be generated internally by a user device (see col. 16,
ll. 35–50 which describes user device configuration messages including a
generated screenshot), and that the data samples may include multiple
configuration settings (see col. 18, ll. 21–47).
Appellant’s argument that Tomay’s “cannot teach that the screenshot
has the configuration settings of the device” is not persuasive because, as the
Examiner explains:
The screenshot does not have the configuration within it, rather
Tomay teaches the inverse as Tomay clearly teaches that the
Appeal 2020-003416
Application 14/661,317

6
configuration messages have the screenshot and/or also list of
errors and error report within them. Appellant focuses on
Tomay’s screenshot when Tomay teaches a variety of data
samples that may be generated and analyzed.
Ans. 8.
As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the cited
references teach or suggest the argued limitation. Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Remaining Claims
Appellant presents no separate arguments for patentability of any
other claims. Appeal Br. 9. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of these claims for the reasons stated with respect to the
independent claims from which they depend. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–10,
12–18, 20–
23
103 Kang, Tomay 1–4, 6–10,
12–18, 20–
23

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).
Appeal 2020-003416
Application 14/661,317

7
AFFIRMED