Ex Parte ChaudhryDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201511960560 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 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. 11/960,560 12/19/2007 Kapil Chaudhry PD-207123 4724 20991 7590 02/26/2015 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC. PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION CA / LA1 / A109 2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245 EXAMINER FLYNN, NATHAN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2421 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/26/2015 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 KAPIL CHAUDHRY ____________ Appeal 2012-011392 Application 11/960,560 1 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CATHERINE SHIANG, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–42. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is The DIRECTTV Group, Inc. of El Segundo, California. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2012-011392 Application 11/960,560 2 THE CLAIMED INVENTION The claims are directed to methods and systems for providing program guide data. Independent claim 1 is directed to a method and independent claim 22 is directed to a system. Claim 1 recites: 1. A method comprising: generating a request for a first encrypted token from a partner service provider using a partner site identifier; communicating the request for the first encrypted token to an authentication web service; validating the partner site identifier; generating the first encrypted token at the authentication web service when the partner site identifier is valid; communicating the first encrypted token to the partner service provider; generating a request for program guide data at the partner service provider with the first encrypted token and communicating the request to a primary service provider; communicating program guide data from the primary service provider to the partner service provider through a network; requesting program guide data using a user network device from the partner service provider; communicating the program guide data from the partner service provider to the user network device through the network; and displaying the program guide data on a display of the user network device. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1 and 22 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang (US 2005/0044377 A1; published Feb. 24, 2005), Appeal 2012-011392 Application 11/960,560 3 Li (US 2005/0235047 A1; published Oct. 20, 2005), and Hendricks (US 6,201,536 B1; issued Mar. 13, 2001). Final Rej. 7–14. 2 Claims 2–10 and 23–31 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang, Li, Hendricks and Arsenault (US 6,925,650 B1; issued Aug. 2, 2005). Id. at 14–18. Claims 11 and 32 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang, Li, Hendricks and Candelore (US 2007/0288967 A1; published Dec. 13, 2007). Id. at 18–19. Claims 12 and 33 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang, Li, Hendricks and Meyerson (US 2005/0086683 A1; published Apr. 21, 2005). Id. at 19–20. Claims 13 and 34 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang, Li, Hendricks and Shewchuk (US 7,640,579 B2; issued Dec. 29, 2009). Id. at 20. Claims 14–18 and 35– 39 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang, Li, Hendricks and Bhatia (US 2008/0148351 A1; published June 19, 2008). Id. at 20–22. Claims 19–21 and 40– 42 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Huang, Li, Hendricks, and Cleron (US No. 2006/0107304 A1; published May 18, 2006). Id. at 22–23. ISSUES Appellant’s arguments present the following issues: Has the Examiner erred by finding that Huang and Hendricks teach a “partner 2 The Examiner’s Answer maintains every ground of rejection set forth in the Final Office Action (“Final Rej.”). Ans. 2. Appeal 2012-011392 Application 11/960,560 4 service provider,” “requesting program guide data using a user network device from the partner service provider,” and “communicating program guide data from the primary service provider to the partner service provider through a network,” as recited in independent claim 1? App. Br. 6. ANALYSIS Appellant presents the same arguments in support of the patentability of all the claims. App. Br. 6–15. Both the Appellant and the Examiner substantively discuss the issues in this case in the context of claim 1. App. Br. 6–11; Ans. 2–8. Partner Service Provider Appellant argues that the cited combination of references does not disclose a “partner service provider.” App. Br. 7–8. The Examiner finds each of Huang and Hendricks separately teaches the “partner service provider.” Final Rej. 7 (citing Huang), 9 (citing Hendricks); Ans. 2–3 (discussing Huang) and 4–6 (discussing Hendricks). 3 Appellant fails to show reversible error because Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Hendricks teaches “partner service provider.” 3 With regard to Hendricks, Appellant presents its arguments in the context of arguing the cited combination of references does not teach “requesting program guide data using a user network device from the partner service provider.” App. Br. 8–10. In accordance with the way Appellant presented its argument, we shall discuss Hendricks in the context of this disputed limitation under the next subheading herein. Appeal 2012-011392 Application 11/960,560 5 Under the Examiner’s alternative mapping with regard to Huang, the Appellant attempts to distinguish this reference by reading limitations from the Specification into the claims. App. Br. 7. The Examiner responds, “giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation and interpreting the claim in light of the specification, the claimed partner service provider can be interpreted as a device for allowing a user network device to gain access to data at a primary service provider or server.” Ans. 3. The Examiner’s interpretation of “partner service provider” in claim 1 does not include the limitations found only in the Specification. The Federal Circuit has recently confirmed that the broadest reasonable interpretation is the correct standard for interpreting claims during examination. In re Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC, No. 2014-1301, slip op. at 13 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015). Claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meanings as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.Cir. 2007). If an inventor acts as his or her own lexicographer, the definition must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Renishaw PLC v Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed.Cir. 1998). The Appellant has not pointed to any limiting definition of “partner service provider” in the Specification or otherwise shown the Examiner’s construction is inconsistent with the Specification. First, Appellant points to paragraph 4 of the Specification and argues “the partner service provider as provided for in claim 1 is another service provider in addition to the primary service provider.” App. Br. 7. Paragraph 4 of the Specification, reads, in its entirety (emphasis added), “[a]llowing other service providers to interact Appeal 2012-011392 Application 11/960,560 6 with and provide different services that supplement the primary service, may be desirable. However, security must be maintained between the device and the partner service and the primary provider.” Paragraph 4 does not provide a limiting definition of “partner service provider” or otherwise conflict with the Examiner’s interpretation or rejection of claim 1. To the contrary, the Examiner’s interpretation of “partner service provider” and his application of Huang to claim 1 is consistent with paragraph 4 of the Specification. The Examiner finds: Huang discloses an authentication system in figure 1 comprising a host computer 11, an authentication server 20, an application server 30, and a net entry apparatus 40 (¶0034). Huang further discloses application server 30 or “primary service provider” verifies the net entry apparatus 40 via authentication server 20 or “authentication web service” through host computer 10 or “partner service provider” (¶0034). Huang further discloses host computer 10 establishes communication between the net entry apparatus 40 and authentication service 20 (¶0035). Ans. 2 (emphasis added). Figure 1 of Huang is reproduced below: Appeal 2012-011392 Application 11/960,560 7 Figure 1 depicts the architecture of the authentication system of Huang. Huang ¶ 34. In accordance with paragraph 4 of the Specification and the Examiner’s interpretation of “partner service provider,” Huang’s host computer 10 provides a supplemental service relating to maintaining security. Appellant also points to Fig. 1 and paragraph 34 of the Specification as limiting the interpretation of “partner service provider.” With regard to Fig. 1, the Specification says, “[t]he drawings described herein are for illustration purposes only and are not intended to limit the scope of the present invention in any way.” Spec. ¶ 9. With regard to paragraph 34, the Specification states, “[t]he following description is merely exemplary in nature and is not intended to limit the present disclosure, application, or uses” (Spec. ¶ 19), and, “while this disclosure includes particular examples, the true scope of the disclosure should not be so limited” (Spec. ¶76). It would be inconsistent with the Specification to limit the interpretation of claim 1 based on Fig. 1 and paragraph 34. Because Appellant fails to show error in the Examiner’s interpretation of “partner service provider,” we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Huang teaches the “partner service provider” of claim 1. Requesting Program Guide Data from the Partner Service Provider Appellant argues that the cited combination of references fails to teach or suggest “requesting program guide data using a network device from the partner service provider” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8. Specifically, “Appellant submits that Hendricks is merely directed to a network manager for a cable television system (Abstract) and is silent regarding a partner Appeal 2012-011392 Application 11/960,560 8 service provider.” Id. According to Appellant, “given that Hendricks only discloses a single service provider, Hendricks can teach, at best, a primary service provider.” Id. at 9. The Examiner relies on Hendricks as teaching or suggesting this limitation. Final Rej. 9–10; Ans. 4–5. Specifically, the Examiner cites to the following portions of Hendricks: Fig. 1, 8:7–54, 9:13–23, 9:66–10:3, and 29:17–44. Id. Figure 1 of Hendricks is reproduced below: Figure 1 of Hendricks shows the components of a television delivery system. Hendricks, 5:47–48. In response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner states the following: Hendricks discloses a system in figure 1 comprising operations center 202 or “primary service provider”, a headend 208 or “partner service provider”, and a set top terminal 220 or “user network device”. Hendricks discloses operations center 202 generates program packages and program control information and transmits the packages and information to headend 208 (Col. 8, lines 7-54). Headend 208 comprises network manager 214 which works in unison with signal processing equipment 209 and file server 215 to manage operations of cable headend 208 (Col. 9, lines 13-23 and Col 29, lines 17-40). Appeal 2012-011392 Application 11/960,560 9 . . . . Hendricks discloses set-top terminal 220 can transmit requests for menus or “program guide data” to headend 208 or “partner service provider”. Therefore, Hendricks teaches requesting program guide data (i.e., menus) using a user network device (i.e., set top terminal 220) from the partner service provider (i.e., headend 208)(Col. 9, line 66 to Col. 10, line 3 and Col. 29, lines 31-34 and lines 43-44). . . . . As stated above, Hendricks discloses headend 208 comprises network manager 214 which works in unison with signal processing equipment 209 and file server 215 to manage operations of cable headend 208 (Col. 9, lines 13-23). Furthermore, set-top terminal 220 or “user network device” can transmit requests for menus or “program guide data” to headend 208 or “partner service provider” (Col. 9, line 66 to Col. 10, line 3 and Col.29, lines 31-34 and lines 43-44). Therefore, Hendricks teaches requesting program guide data (i.e., menus) using a user network device (i.e., set top terminal 220) from the partner service provider (i.e., headend 208). Ans. 4–6. In comparing Hendricks to claim 1, the Examiner identified operations center 202 as the “primary service provider,” headend 208 as the “partner service provider,” set top terminal 220 as the “user network device,” and menus as the “program guide data,” and showed how these components interact to perform the functions set forth in method claim 1. Final Rej. 9–10; Ans. 4–6. Appellant has failed to persuade us of error with regard to these findings. Appellant further argues that the Examiner failed to provide the requisite articulated reasoning to combine the teachings and suggestions of Huang and Hendricks. App Br. 9–10. To the contrary, the Examiner stated that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to Appeal 2012-011392 Application 11/960,560 10 modify Huang and Li in view of Hendricks, “for the benefit of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of providing program menus to subscribers to facilitate program selection.” Final Rej. 10. We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding. As shown above, claim 1 recites familiar elements according to known methods to produce predictable results and is, therefore, obvious. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). Communicating the Program Guide Data from the Partner Service Provider to the User Network Device through the Network Appellant argues that Hendricks fails to teach this limitation “[f]or at least similar reasons as those stated above with respect to requesting program guide data using a user network device from the partner service provider.” App. Br. 11. For the reasons stated above, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings. Independent claim 22 Appellant argues that independent claim 22 is not rendered obvious by Huang, Li, or Hendricks, alone or in combination, “[f]or at least similar reasons as those stated above with respect to claim 1.” App. Br. 12. For the reasons stated with regard to claim 1, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings. Appeal 2012-011392 Application 11/960,560 11 We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of (1) independent claim 1; (2) independent claim 22, which recites commensurate limitations; and (3) dependent claims 2–21 and 23–42 not argued separately. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–42 is affirmed. 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 kme Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation