COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 2, 20212020003416 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation