Ex Parte Arling

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

13793519 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
131793,519 03/11/2013 Paul D. Arling
34018 7590 10/04/2016
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
77 WEST WACKER DRIVE
SUITE 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
81230.164US1 1605
EXAMINER
SALTARELLI, DOMINIC D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2016 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):
j arosikg@gtlaw.com
chiipmail@gtlaw.com
escobedot@gtlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL D. ARLING 1
Appeal2015-004162
Application 13/793 ,519
Technology Center 2400
Before SHARON PENICK, JOHN R. KENNY, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellant identifies Universal Electronics Inc. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-004162
Application 13/793,519
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to methods for configuring a smart device
program guide app. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below with its disputed
limitation italicized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for configuring a program guide graphical
user interface (GUI) on a portable device, comprising:
determining a current geographical location of the portable
device;
receiving by the portable device data indicative of an
identity of a set-top box;
using the data indicative of the identity of the set-top box
to identify a one of a plurality of Multi-System Operator
(MSO) providers;
using the determined current geographical location of the
portable device to select from a MSO map associated with
the identified one of the plurality of MSO providers a
channel lineup
wherein the selected channel lineup is appropriate for the
identified one of the plurality of MSO providers and the
current geographical location of the portable device; and
configuring the program guide GUI on the portable device
whereby the selected channel lineup is displayable to a
user of the portable device for use in commanding tuning
operations of the set-top box.
2
Appeal2015-004162
Application 13/793,519
Cusick
Gaquin
Ukkadam
Demchenko
Lee
REFERENCES
US 2010/0311399 Al
US 2011/0258271 Al
US 2011/0283333 Al
US 2012/0151525 Al
US 2013/0047174 Al
REJECTIONS
Dec. 9, 2010
Oct. 20, 2011
Nov. 17, 2011
June 14, 2012
Feb.21,2013
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Cusick, Ukkadam, and
Demchenko. Final Act. 3-7.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Cusick, Ukkadam, Demchenko, and
Lee. Final Act. 7-8.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Cusick, Ukkadam, Demchenko, and
Gaquin. Final Act. 8-9.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, and 10
The Examiner holds that the combination of Cusick, Ukkadam and
Demchenko renders claim 1 obvious. Final Act. 3-5. The Examiner finds
that Cusick teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 except the receiving
limitation ("receiving by the portable device data indicative of an identity of
a set-top box"); the identifying limitation, italicized above; and the
configuring limitation ("configuring the program guide GUI on the portable
device whereby the selected channel lineup is displayable to a user of the
portable device for use in commanding tuning operations of the set-top
3
Appeal2015-004162
Application 13/793,519
box"). Id. at 3--4. The Examiner relies on Ukkadam in combination with
Cusick as teaching or suggesting the receiving and identifying limitations
and on Demchenko in combination with Cusick and Ukkadam as teaching or
suggesting the configuring limitation. Id.
For the disputed identifying limitation, the Examiner relies on
Ukkadam's use of a base ID. Final Act. 4; Ans. 2-3. The Examiner finds
Ukkadam's base ID is data indicative of the identity of a set-top box,
Ukkadam uses that base ID to identify a cable provider, and the identified
cable provider is one of a plurality of Multi-System Operator providers in
Ukkadam. Final Act. 4; Ans. 2-3. Appellant disputes the Examiner's
finding that Ukkadam uses the base ID to identify a cable provider. App. Br.
3-9; Reply Br. 2-5.
For background, Ukkadam uses its base ID as part of its registration
and authorization process. Ans. 2-3; Ukkadam i-fi-148-50, 54--59, Figs. 4--5.
Ukkadam discloses having a user enter the base ID for a set top box into a
field on a registration form. Ans. 2-3; Ukkadam i150, Fig. 4. Ukkadam
discloses sending the completed registration form to an authorization unit.
Ans. 2-3; Ukkadam i156. Ukkadam discloses having the authorization unit
verify that the base ID matches records maintained by the cable provider,
and after that validation, having the access control center create a footprint
profile of relevant authorization information. Ans. 2-3; Ukkadam i159.
Ukkadam discloses identifying the cable provider in that footprint profile.
Ans. 2-3; Ukkadam i159, Fig. 5.
Appellant argues that Ukkadam never discloses that this registration
and authorization process actually uses the base ID to identify the cable
provider. App. Br. 3-9; Reply Br. 2-5. Appellant argues that just because a
base ID is identified in the registration form and a cable provider is
4
Appeal2015-004162
Application 13/793,519
identified in the footprint profile does not mean that there is a causal
connection between the two events. App. Br. 3-9; Reply Br. 2-5. Appellant
further argues that the cable provider has already been identified prior to the
registration and authorization process because each set top box is associated
with a particular provider. App. Br. 3-9; Reply Br. 2-5.
We are not persuaded by these arguments: we agree with the
Examiner that Ukkadam uses its base ID to identify the cable provider. Ans.
2-3. As described above, Ukkadam discloses, in its registration and
authorization process, creating an authorization profile that identifies the
cable provider, and creating that authorization profile only after verifying the
base ID matches the records of (i.e., corresponds to) the cable provider. Id.;
Ukkadam i-fi-1 48-50, 54--59, Figs. 4--5 ("may verify ... [the] base code ...
match[ es] the records maintained by the cable provider .... After validation
and acceptance of the registration information, the access control center 318
creates a footprint profile .... "). Therefore, Ukkadam discloses a causal
connection between the identification of the base ID and the subsequent
identification of the cable provider: Ukkadam teaches or suggests the use of
the base ID to identify the cable provider in the verification process.
Further, we agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and
rationale for claim 1, and we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims
2-5, 7, 9, and 10, not separately argued.
Claims 6 and 8
Appellant does not separately address claims 6 and 8, both of which
depend on claim 1. App. Br. 3-9. Therefore, we sustain the rejections of
claims 6 and 8 for the same reasons as for claim 1.
5
Appeal2015-004162
Application 13/793,519
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-10.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6