Ex Parte LING

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2016

11828556 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2016)

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.
11/828,556 07/26/2007 Sui-Ky Ringo LING PD-207055 9524
20991 7590 02/24/2016
THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC.
PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION
CA / LA1 / A109
2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
EXAMINER
ALATA, AYOUB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2494
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/24/2016 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 SUI-KY RINGO LING
____________

Appeal 2014-001752
Application 11/828,556
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–4, 6, 7, 10–23, 25, and 26, which are all the pending claims in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to a system and method for controlling
the operation of a user device associated with a content processing system
(Spec. ¶ 1). Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:

1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is DIRECTV Group, Inc.
(App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2014-001752
Application 11/828,556

2
1. A method of operating a user device having a
memory with stored content therein comprising:
receiving a booking and recording request at a recording
service module;
reserving recording resources of the user device in
response to the booking and recording request;
removing stored content from the memory to make room
for recording request content based on the booking and
recording request;
resolving conflicts between previously booked events
and the booking and recording request;
booking the booking and recording request;
determining a start time from the booking and recording
request;
when the start time is reached, initiating recording of the
recording request content by providing recording information
comprising a program information packet and rating
information from the recording service module to a memory
write module in the user device;
receiving the recording request content; and
storing the recording request content in the memory
using a write control module.
The Examiner’s Rejections2
Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14–20, 22, 25, and 26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sato (US 2001/0029611 A1; Oct.
11, 2001), Wood (US 2005/0047752 A1; Mar. 3, 2005), and Blatter
(US 5,844,478; Dec. 1, 1998) (see Final Act. 5–10).

2 The rejection of claims 1 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
has been withdrawn by the Examiner (Ans. 3).
Appeal 2014-001752
Application 11/828,556

3
Claims 11, 13, 21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sato, Wood, Blatter, and Reisman (US 7,987,491 B2; July
26, 2011) (see Final Act. 11–12).
Issue on Appeal
Appellant’s contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Sato, Wood,
and Blatter teaches the method steps of “removing stored content from
the memory . . .” and “when the start time is reached, initiating
recording of the recording request content by providing recording
information . . .” recited in independent claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the cited portions of Sato do not disclose
“removing stored content from the memory to make room for recording
request content based on the booking and recording request,” as recited in
claim 1 (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 1–4). Appellant argues the disclosure of Sato
in paragraph 14 describes arbitrating between different units for reservation
priority rather than removing stored content from the memory based on a
booking and recording request (App. Br. 7). The Examiner responds by
explaining Wood, which was relied on for teaching the disputed limitation,
discloses a system for controlling recording and storage where the oldest
show is removed to make room for new shows scheduled to be recorded
(Ans. 5–6 (citing Wood ¶¶ 38, 62)).
Appellant further argues Blatter describes creating a network
information table (NIT) and condensed program specific information (CPSI)
for each program, but is silent as to providing the created information to a
Appeal 2014-001752
Application 11/828,556

4
memory write module in a user device (App. Br. 8–9). The Examiner
explains that Wood was relied on as disclosing storing a plurality of video
information when a show that meets the user criteria is available (Ans. 6
(citing Wood ¶¶ 38–40)), whereas columns 10 and 13 of Blatter were cited
as disclosing generating CPSI for play back of a selected program (Ans. 6).
The Examiner further concludes that combining Blatter’s CSPI with Wood’s
video information, which is made available at the start time of the show to
be recorded, would have suggested the disputed limitation (Ans. 6).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion and adopt
them as our own. We further observe Wood’s description of determining the
highest priority programming to be recorded when programming which
meets the criteria becomes available, indicates that such priority is
determined when the start time of that program is reached. In other words,
contrary to Appellant’s contention that Wood is silent as to determining a
start time and, when the start time is reached, initiating recording (Reply Br.
3), Wood makes that determination by providing recording information at
the time the desired programming, or the programming that meets the
criteria, is available and ready to be recorded before initiating recording (see
Wood ¶ 38).
In view of the analysis above, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
contentions. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1, independent claim 17 which is argued based on the same reasons
presented for claim 1, or the remaining dependent claims which are not
argued separately (see App. Br. 9–11).

Appeal 2014-001752
Application 11/828,556

5
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–4, 6, 7, 10–23, 25,
and 26 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