Ex Parte Huysegems et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 10, 2016

12585089 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/585,089 0910312009
30593 7590 05/12/2016
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, PLC
P.O. BOX 8910
RESTON, VA 20195
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rafael Huysegems
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.
29250A-000074/US 3855
EXAMINER
SALCE, JASON P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/12/2016 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):
dcmailroom@hdp.com
pshaddin@hdp.com
jcastellano@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAFAEL HUYSEGEMS and NICO VICTOR VERZIJP
Appeal2014-004879
Application 12/585,089
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention selects channels in an Internet Protocol
Television (IPTV) system by (1) receiving channel change requests from a
group of users, and (2) determining the selected channel based on selection
criteria derived from the requests. See generally Abstract. Claims 1 and 12
are illustrative:
Appeal2014-004879
Application 12/585,089
1. An assisted channel selection system comprising:
an internet protocol television (IPTV) server configured
to multicast a multicast video stream to a group of users, the
multicast video stream including a plurality of IPTV channels
and an additional channel, the additional channel carrying one
of the IPTV channels;
a receiver configured to receive a plurality of channel
change requests from the group of users of the IPTV system;
and a selection engine configured to,
output a channel change command to the IPTV
server, the channel change command instructing the
IPTV server which one of the plurality of IPTV channels
to multicast as the additional channel; and
determine said additional channel from the
plurality of IPTV channels for at least one user of said
group of users by filtering the channel change requests
from said group of users based on at least one selection
criterion of the at least one user, wherein
the IPTV server is configured to transmit the
additional channel to the at least one user, if the at least
one user is tuned to the additional channel.
12. A remote control device for use in the IPTV system of
claim 1, said remote control device being configured to transmit
a signal to the assisted channel selection device of claim 1, the
signal indicating that channel selection is to be based on at least
one selection criterion derived from at least a part of the
plurality of channel change requests of said group of users.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-7 and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Gao (US 2008/0117336 Al; May 22, 2008), Agrawal
2
Appeal2014-004879
Application 12/585,089
(US 2009/0049485 Al; Feb. 19, 2009), and Young (US 2006/0080360 Al;
Apr. 13, 2006). Final Act. 2-7. 1
The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gao, Agrawal, Young, and Shin (US 2004/0255118 Al;
Dec. 16, 2004). Final Act. 7-8.
The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gao, Agrawal, Young, and McKissick (US 2007/0124795
A 1; May 31, 2007). Final Act. 8-9.
THE REJECTION OVER GAO, AGRAWAL, AND YOUNG
The Examiner finds that Gao discloses (1) an IPTV server configured
to multicast a multicast video stream to a group of users, where the stream
includes plural IPTV channels and an additional channel, and (2) a selection
engine configured to output a channel change command to the server
instructing the server which channel to multicast as the additional channel.
Final Act. 2-3. According to the Examiner, Gao's IPTV server is
configured to transmit the additional channel to at least one user if the user is
tuned to the additional channel. Final Act. 3.
Although the Examiner acknowledges that Gao lacks the recited
receiver, and does not disclose that the selection engine determines the
additional channel based on at least one selection criterion for the user, the
Examiner cites Agrawal as teaching this feature. Final Act. 3--4. The
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed June
25, 2013 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed November 20, 2013
("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed February 26, 2014
("Ans."); and (4) the Reply Brief filed March 10, 2014 ("Reply Br.").
3
Appeal2014-004879
Application 12/585,089
Examiner further acknowledges that Agrawal does not filter channel change
requests from a group of users to determine a selected channel or content,
but cites Young as teaching this feature. Final Act. 4--5. Based on these
collective teachings, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 would have been
obvious. Final Act. 5.
Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest a
selection engine configured to determine an additional channel for at least
one user by filtering channel change requests from a group of users based on
a user's selection criterion, as claimed. App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 2-5.
According to Appellants, Young's analyzer 170 merely analyzes and
generates data regarding channels viewed by a group of users, but does not
determine content for an additional channel by filtering channel change
requests from a group of users, let alone do so using selection criteria of a
particular user in the group. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3--4. Appellants add that
Agrawal is likewise deficient in this regard, as Agrawal merely creates a
pool of potential channels to be switched to next, and adds channels to the
pool based on the particular person in a group who triggered the event-not
others in the group. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 4.
Appellants add that Gao' s IPTV server is not configured to transmit
the additional channel to at least one user if the user is tuned to the
additional channel contrary to the Examiner's assertion, for the user in Gao
is said to tune only to target channels IA-not auxiliary channels IB. App.
Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 5---6.
4
Appeal2014-004879
Application 12/585,089
ISSUE
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Gao, Agrawal, and Young collectively would have taught or suggested
( 1) a selection engine configured to determine an additional channel for at
least one user by filtering channel change requests from a group of users
based on at least one selection criterion of at least one user, and (2) an IPTV
server configured to transmit the additional channel to at least one user if the
user is tuned to the additional channel?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-7 and 9-11
We begin by noting that the Examiner relies on either Gao or Agrawal
for teaching a selection engine for outputting a channel change command to
an IPTV server instructing the server which channel to multicast as an
additional channel. Compare Final Act. 3 (citing Gao for teaching this
limitation), with Final Act. 4 (citing Agrawal for teaching this limitation).
The Examiner also cites Agrawal and Young for collectively teaching the
recited selection engine's additional channel determination that filters
channel change requests from a group of users. Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 3--4.
We see no error in these findings. Agrawal builds a pool of potential
channels to be viewed in the future based on the viewing context which can
be influenced by various parameters including, among other things, (1) the
person requesting the channel selection, and (2) the group to which the
person belongs (e.g., family, children, parents). Agrawal i-f 37; Fig. 3 (step
304); accord Final Act. 4.
5
Appeal2014-004879
Application 12/585,089
Based on this functionality, the Examiner's position that Agrawal's
selection engine determines an additional channel based on at least one
selection criterion for the user (Id.; Ans. 4) is reasonable even assuming,
without deciding, that Agrawal builds this pool based solely on trigger
events from that particular user as Appellants contend (App. Br. 8; Reply Br.
4). That Agrawal does not filter channel change requests from a group of
users as Appellants contend (Reply Br. 4) is of no consequence here, for the
Examiner cites Young-not Agrawal-for that teaching. Ans. 4 (citing
Young i-fi-f 17, 37).
Appellants' arguments regarding Young's alleged shortcomings in
this regard (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3--4) are likewise unavailing. As the
Examiner indicates, Young analyzes and uses user input feedback to not
only manage delivery of the range of multiple channels, but also manage
availability of certain content channels from a multiple-channel content
source. Ans. 3--4 (citing Young i-f 17). To this end, a Service Analysis and
Management Analysis block 170 collects information from a large group of
users, including how long and when a channel is used, particular channels
joined and left, and various other user selection behaviors. Young i137;
Figs. 3--4. Notably, the analysis block 170 not only filters and ignores input
information to restrict input from certain users under certain conditions, but
also filters out certain recognizable behavior patterns that are irrelevant to
collecting viewer preference reports. Young i1 3 7.
This filtered information is provided to Multicast Management block
160 to ensure that content is readily available to users based on this
information. Id. Because the Multicast Management block instructs the
multicast blocks which additional channels should be added to the set of
6
Appeal2014-004879
Application 12/585,089
content transmitted further downstream (Young if 30), we see no error in the
Examiner's position that Agrawal and Young collectively at least suggest
determining an additional channel for a user by filtering channel change
requests from a group of users based on at least one selection criterion of the
user. We reach this conclusion even assuming, without deciding, that
Young's analysis block 170 is limited to collecting and analyzing data, for
this data is nevertheless provided to Multicast Management block 160 to
determine additional channels as noted above. See also Young if 38 (noting
that the user input feedback data from analysis block 170 can be used to
drop channels from-and add content to---a channel lineup). Appellants'
contention, then, that Young does not determine additional channels (Reply
Br. 4) is, at best, overstated in light of these teachings.
Nevertheless, we find the Examiner's reliance on Gao problematic for
teaching a server configured to transmit the additional channel to at least one
user if the user is tuned to the additional channel, as claimed. As Appellants
indicate, Gao' s system decreases the time needed to switch channels by
transmitting an auxiliary channel IB when the user is tuned to a separate
target channel IA. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 5---6 (citing Gao iii! 41-50,
54-55; Fig. 4). The user simply does not tune to the auxiliary channels IB;
rather, the user tunes to target channel IA. Accord Reply Br. 6 (noting this
point).
To the extent that the Examiner equates tuning to an additional
channel to joining a multicast group (see Final Act. 3; Ans. 5), such a
position strains reasonable limits on this record and is, therefore, unavailing.
And to the extent that the Examiner's position is premised on the notion that
tuning to a target channel in Gao also tunes to its corresponding auxiliary
7
Appeal2014-004879
Application 12/585,089
channel (see Ans. 5), such a theory is unsubstantiated on this record and,
therefore, untenable.
Accordingly, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
(1) independent claim 1; (2) independent claim 11 2 which recites
commensurate limitations; and (3) dependent claims 2-7, 9, and 10.
Claim 12
We sustain, however, the Examiner's rejection of independent claim
12 reciting a remote control device for use in the IPTV system of claim 1,
and configured to transmit a signal to the device of claim 1. Final Act. 7
(citing Agrawal i-fi-125, 31, 42--43). Although Appellants characterize claim
12 as dependent (App. Br. 11 ), it is independent. That is, claim 12 is
directed to a remote control device that is intended to be used with the
system of claim 1, but does not positively recite the combination of the
remote control device and the system of claim 1. Therefore, Appellants'
arguments pertaining to claim 1 (App. Br. 11) do not persuasively rebut the
Examiner's findings, for Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with
the scope of claim 12. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
that claim.
2 Although Appellants characterize this claim as dependent (App. Br. 11 ), it
is actually an independent claim because it does not further limit claim 1, but
rather is directed to an access node that incorporates the elements of claim 1
by reference.
8
Appeal2014-004879
Application 12/585,089
THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Because the Examiner has not shown that the additional cited prior art
cures the foregoing deficiencies regarding the rejection of independent claim
1, we will not sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claim 8 (Final
Act. 7-8) for similar reasons.
But because Appellants' arguments regarding independent claim 12
are unpersuasive as noted above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
dependent claim 13 for similar reasons.
CONCLUSION
Under§ 103, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-11, but did not
err in rejecting claims 12 and 13.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-13 is affirmed-in-part.
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-IN-PART
9