Ex Parte Acharya et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 2, 201511145832 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2015) 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. 11/145,832 06/06/2005 Swarup Acharya Acharya 26-13 3818 46304 7590 02/02/2015 RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP 48 South Service Road Suite 100 Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER HOSSAIN, FARZANA E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2482 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte SWARUP ACHARYA, and ANURAG SRIVASTAVA ____________________ Appeal 2012-0104091 Application 11/145,832 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The Real Party in Interest is Lucent Technologies, Inc. (App. Br. 1.) Appeal 2012-010409 Application 11/145,832 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 24–45. Claims 1–23 have been canceled. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellants’ Invention Appellants invented a method and system for allowing a TV service provider (114) to deliver via an interface device (104) a user-defined channel containing content specified by an authenticated subscriber (106). Spec. 2: 23–28, Fig. 1. In particular, upon obtaining the requested content from an external network (120), the service provider (114) generates a media stream for delivery to the subscriber via the user-defined channel as part of the contiguous channels allocated to the user by the subscription service agreement between the subscriber and the service provider. Spec. 7:20– Spec. 8:10. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 24 further illustrates the invention as follows: 24. A method of providing a user-defined channel as one of a plurality of channels of a subscription service in a signal distribution system, the user- defined channel comprising content specified by a system user, the method comprising the steps of: obtaining, from a network external to a provider network of the subscription service, at least a portion of the content specified by the system user; and generating at least one media stream comprising the content; Appeal 2012-010409 Application 11/145,832 3 wherein the media stream is delivered via an interface device associated with the system user in conjunction with the subscription service; and wherein the plurality of channels of the subscription service comprises a predetermined range of contiguous channels allocated by a service provider for utilization as respective user-defined channels prior to specification of the content by the system user, the provided user-defined channel being a selected one of the allocated contiguous channels within the predetermined range. Prior Art Relied Upon The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of unpatentability: Gutta et al., US 2003/0145326 A1, Jul. 31, 2003. Karaoguz et al., US 2004/0114036 A1, Jun. 17, 2004. Ellis et al., US 2005/0028208 A1, Feb. 3, 2005. Howard et al., US 2005/0159863 A1, Jul. 21, 2005. McQuaide, JR., US 2206/0041923 A1, Feb. 23, 2006. Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows: 1. Claims 24–35 and 39–45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Howard and Karaoguz. 2. Claim 36 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Howard, Karaoguz, and McQuaide. 3. Claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Howard, Karaoguz, and Gutta. Appeal 2012-010409 Application 11/145,832 4 4. Claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Howard, Karaoguz, and Ellis. ANALYSIS We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 9–17.2 Dispositive Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Howard and Karaoguz teaches or suggests providing a user-defined channel as part of a plurality of channels of a subscription service containing a predetermined range of contiguous channels allocated by the service provider prior to the user specifying the content, as recited claim 24? Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Howard and Karaoguz teaches or suggests the disputed limitations emphasized above. Br. 9–13. In particular, Appellants argue although Karaoguz generally discloses a media guide having personal channels reserved for streaming content previously specified by a user, those personal channels are not within a predetermined range of contiguous channels allocated to the user by the service provider prior to the user’s Specification of content thereto. Br. 10–11. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 26, 2012), and the Answer (mailed April 11, 2012) for their respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Brief. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2012-010409 Application 11/145,832 5 In response, the Examiner finds because Karaoguz discloses listing selected channels contiguously in the media guide, Karaoguz teaches the user obtaining the channels from the list of contiguous channels offered by the service provider prior to the channels being personalized by the user. Ans. 18–19. On the record before us, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and ultimate conclusion of obviousness. In particular, as depicted in Figure 1C, Karaoguz discloses a TV subscriber having a media processing system (MPS) including a TV having a subscription agreement with a service provider to bring conventional channels to the subscriber’s home. Karaoguz, ¶ 65. The subscriber can utilize media exchange software (MES) to construct personal media channels and to organize them into several channels on the MPS. Id. ¶ 72. Subsequently, the subscriber can generate a media guide for displaying TV channels and personal media channels selected to be shared among participants in a media exchange network. Id. ¶ 78. Because the selected channels featured in the media guide include a subset of the conventional channels selected from the regular list of contiguous channels the subscriber receives from the TV service provider as per the subscription agreement, we agree with the Examiner those channels were previously allocated to the subscriber before they could be selected for insertion in the media guide. We, therefore, find no error in the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Karaoguz and Howard teaches the disputed limitations of claim 24. Appeal 2012-010409 Application 11/145,832 6 Regarding claim 26, Appellants argue Howard’s disclosure of obtaining ID numbers of set-top boxes in a satellite TV system does not teach the user providing authentication to permit the service provider to access an external network on behalf of the user. App. Br. 14–15. This argument is not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner Howard’s disclosure [¶ 93] that the user provides, to the service provider (Direct TV), the ID numbers of the set top boxes located in the user’s home to enable the provider to authenticate the user before retrieving from another network certain programming content requested by the user. Ans. 19–20. Regarding claim 37, Appellants argue although Gutta teaches a number of ways viewers can pay for any channels they wish, these channels do not include user defined channels as recited. App. Br. 16. This argument is unavailing. As discussed above, the selection of a subset of channels from the list of contiguous channels the service provider supplies to the subscriber under the agreement teaches the user-defined channels. Consequently, we agree with the Examiner Gutta’s disclosure of paying for such selected channels teaches the disputed limitations. Ans. 21. Regarding the rejection of claims 25, 27–36, and 38–45, Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claims 24, 26, and 37 above. Thus, claims 25, 27–36, and 38–45 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2012-010409 Application 11/145,832 7 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 24–45 as set forth above. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED lp Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation