Ex Parte Goswitz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2017

13569102 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2017)

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.
13/569,102 08/07/2012 Philip J. Goswitz DTV211043 8421
141451 7590 11/01/2017
AT&T Legal Dept. - [HDP]
Attention: Patent Docketing, Room 2A-207
One AT&T Way
Bedminster, NJ 07921
EXAMINER
HUANG, JEN-SHI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2423
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2017 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 PHILIP J. GOSWITZ, JORGE H. GUZMAN,
BENJAMIN MUI, DAVID N. SCHLACHT,
JOSEPH SANTORU, JOHN L. NORIN, SHANNON A.
KALLIN, SEAN S. LEE, DREW T. CHEN, and SCOTT D.
CASAVANT
____________________

Appeal 2017-006196
Application 13/569,1021
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1–32, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is The DIRECTV Group,
Inc., a subsidiary of AT&T. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-006196
Application 13/569,102

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ application relates to configuring a receiving unit, such as
a set-top box, for use with an auxiliary remote control and a primary remote
control. See Spec. ¶¶ 1, 45, 61–62. The receiving unit can be configured to
filter content available to a user using the auxiliary remote control, for
example, to restrict access by a child to particular content. See Spec. ¶¶ 5–7.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of operating a receiving unit comprising:

generating a plurality of screen displays for displaying
selections for selecting a plurality of filters corresponding to a
rating filter, a time of day limit filter and a channel filter;

selecting and associating filter features from the plurality
of filters for filtering content data from a set of available content
data for use with an auxiliary remote control device having an
auxiliary remote control device identifier;

storing a primary key value table for a primary remote
control device in the receiving unit;

storing an auxiliary key value table for the auxiliary
remote control device in the receiving unit so that a first key in a
first location of the primary remote control has a first function
different than a second function of a second key corresponding
to a second location corresponding to the first location of the first
key on the primary remote control device;

storing the filter features with the auxiliary remote control
identifier in a memory of the receiving unit;

receiving the auxiliary remote control device identifier
from the auxiliary remote control device at the receiving unit;

Appeal 2017-006196
Application 13/569,102

3
in response to receiving the auxiliary remote control
device identifier, filtering the set of available content data with
the filter features to form filtered available content data less than
the set of available content data;

displaying a user interface having the filtered available
content data associated with the auxiliary remote control device
on a display;

actuating the second key; and

performing the second function different than the first
function at the receiving unit in response to actuating the second
key.

The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1–6, 9–17, 21, 22, and 25–32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jarman (US 2006/0277564 A1; Dec. 7,
2006), Kirsche (US 2008/0117339 A1; May 22, 2008), and Novak (US
7,111,320; Sep. 19, 2006).
Claims 7, 8, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jarman, Kirsche, Novak, and Allibhoy
(US 7,426,558; Sep. 16, 2008).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–6, 9–22, and 25–32
Appellants contend Jarman fails to teach “generating a plurality of
screen displays for displaying selections for selecting a plurality of filters,”
as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 7–8. Appellants also contend none of the
cited references teach “selecting and associating filter features . . . for use
Appeal 2017-006196
Application 13/569,102

4
with an auxiliary remote control device having an auxiliary remote control
device identifier.” App. Br. 8–9.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. Jarman
discloses a blocking filter setup menu 46 with a number of different
blocking categories, each configured with a dropdown menu for user
selection of blocking filters. Jarman, ¶ 44; Fig. 7. We agree with the
Examiner (Final Act. 5; Ans. 18–19) that Jarman’s menu 46 in Figure 7
suggests multiple screen displays for displaying filter selections as recited in
claim 1. That is, each time a user activates a different dropdown menu, the
overall screen display is changed, and is, therefore, a different screen
display. Thus, by activating each of the dropdown menus in succession to
select blocking filters from different categories, the user generates “a
plurality of screen displays for displaying selections for selecting a plurality
of filters.”
Nevertheless, even if we agreed with Appellants that the claimed
screen displays are different than Jarman’s dropdown menus (Reply Br. 3),
Jarman also discloses a second blocking criteria setup menu, shown in
Figure 8, in addition to the blocking filter setup menu of Figure 7. Jarman,
¶¶ 44, 47. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Jarman’s
menus in Figures 7 and 8 would be presented in different screen displays.
We are, therefore, not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Jarman fails
to teach the “generating a plurality of screen displays” limitation in claim 1.
App. Br. 7–8.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that none of the
cited references teach using “an auxiliary remote control device having an
auxiliary remote control device identifier.” App. Br. 8–9. Kirsche discloses
Appeal 2017-006196
Application 13/569,102

5
a system where a set-top box can differentiate between at least two different
remote controls. Kirsche, ¶ 9. Kirsche also discloses limiting content
as a function of the corresponding remote control and/or the
identified user. For example, certain remote controls, such as but
limited to adult and child remote controls, may be automatically
limited to display certain types of content and accessing certain
types of contend, irrespective of the actual user of the same.

Id. at ¶ 24. Here, Kirsche teaches filtering content on the basis of the
identity of the remote control being used. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Kirsche only discloses a user
identity-specific method of filtering content. App. Br. 10.
For these reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2–6, 9–22, and 25–32 not specifically
argued separately, as unpatentable over Jarman, Kirsche, and Novak.
Claims 7, 8, 23, and 24
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7 and 8
because Allibhoy’s filter is not associated with an auxiliary remote control
device. App. Br. 13. However, the Examiner relies on Kirsche for teaching
the feature of filtering content based on the identity of the remote control
being used. Final Act. 6–7, Ans. 19. “Non-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981)). Appellants’ argument against Allibhoy is, therefore, not
persuasive of error because it does not address the Examiner’s rejection
based on the collective teachings of the references.
Appeal 2017-006196
Application 13/569,102

6
For these reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 7, 8, 23, and 24 as unpatentable over Jarman,
Kirsche, Novak, and Allibhoy. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claims
7, 8, 23, and 24.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–32.
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