Ex Parte Parmar et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 20, 201611843036 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111843,036 08/22/2007 98417 7590 06/20/2016 Otterstedt, Ellenbogen & Kammer, LLP P.O. Box 381 Cos Cob, CT 06807-0381 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Vaibhav Parmar 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. TWC 07-33/1033-6 4366 EXAMINER TOPGY AL, GELEK W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2481 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 06/20/2016 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 V AIBHA VP ARMAR, MICHAEL FREY, MELISSA PRICE, and KHURRAM P. SHEIKH Appeal2015-002255 Application 11/843,036 Technology Center 2400 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 7-34, and 36-55, all the pending claims in the present application. Claims 3-6, 35, and 56-58 are canceled. See Claim Appx. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. The present invention relates generally to techniques for remote control of a digital video recorder. See Spec. 1: 5-11. Appeal2015-002255 Application 11/843,036 Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method for controlling at least one digital video recorder, said method comprising the steps of: registering a user of said at least one digital video recorder with a wireless access to said at least one digital video recorder; downloading a digital video recorder remote control application to a wireless device based on parameters gathered while registering said user; determining a location of said at least one digital video recorder; querying at least one server from said wireless device to obtain program data from said server and DVR data from said at least one digital video recorder; receiving said program data from said server and said DVR data from said at least one digital video recorder, said program data comprising a program guide customized for said location of said at least one digital video recorder; displaying said program data and/or said DVR data on said wireless device; and controlling said at least one digital video recorder by selecting a user-operable function from said program data and/or said DVR data on said wireless device. Prior Art Mineyama US 2002/0042916 Al Apr. 11, 2002 Franco US 2002/0046407 Al Apr. 18, 2002 Istvan US 2002/0184635 Al Dec. 5, 2002 Cantalini US 2006/0277272 Al Dec. 7, 2006 Kim US 2007 /0074248 Al Mar. 29, 2007 Kvache US 2008/0127257 Al May 29, 2008 Moore US 8,151,303 B2 Apr. 3, 2012 2 Appeal2015-002255 Application 11/843,036 Appellants appeal the following rejections: Claim 1, 2, 7-34, and 36-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Franco in combination with various other prior art (see Final Act. 2-29). ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, 7-31, 33, 34, 36--55 Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that Istvan teaches or suggests a program guide customized for said location of said at least one digital video recorder, as set forth in claim 1? Appellants contend "Istvan at paragraphs [0028]-[0031] fails to teach that Istvan's electronic program guide (EPG) is 'customized for said location of said at least one digital video recorder,' as required by independent claim 1. Nor is that necessarily the case" (App. Br. 8). Appellants further contend that "it is possible that a single version of an EPG could be used for all STBs, independent of their respective locations" (id. at 9). The Examiner finds "that Istvan's EPG remotely accessed by the user is the very same EPG locally accessible on the STB and is therefore 'customized' based on the location of the DVR/STB" (Ans. 30). We agree with the Examiner. We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions set forth in the Answer. Our discussions here will be limited to the following points of emphasis. The Examiner emphasizes that "[a] common feature associated with a Set Top Box (STB) is that they receive EPG that is local/related to the location of the STB ... Thus, Istvan's database 109 (the EPG) is specific for 3 Appeal2015-002255 Application 11/843,036 the location of the STB" (Ans. 30). We find that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an EPG specific to the location of the STB is more desirable and useful than "a single version of an EPG [that] could be used for all STBs, independent of their respective locations" as proffered by Appellants (see App. Br. 9), because in Appellants' scenario, a user would not have access to local programming/news/events. While it is possible that a generic EPG could be sent to all STBs independent of their respective locations, it is also possible, and highly likely, that the EPG is customized for the location of the STB, e.g., local news programs. For example, Istvan discloses: The network center 106 includes a server 112 that communicates with the Internet 108, and includes a database 109 containing programming information ... copies of the database 109 are periodically transmitted ... to the STBs 102 for local storage and use by the consumer .... Programming information from the database 109 can also be downloaded on demand to the PC 114 or wireless device 116, ... allows a consumer using the PC 114 or wireless device 116 to log into the network 100 via the Internet 108 and interact with the STB 102 located in their home. (i-f 17). Istvan further discloses "remotely obtaining and viewing television program schedule information in the form of the EPG 440" (i-f 28; see also i1i129-31) and that "the address of the consumer's STB 102 is retrieved from the database 110 so that it can be used to direct the consumer's commands to their own STB 102" (id.). In other words, as highlighted by the Examiner supra, Istvan's EPG remotely accessed by the user on the wireless device is the very same EPG locally accessible on the STB in their home and is therefore "customized" based on the location of the DVR/STB. We further find that the Examiner is not using "inherency" to illustrate this feature, but rather explicit teachings/suggestions in Istvan. Thus, we find unavailing 4 Appeal2015-002255 Application 11/843,036 Appellants' contention that Istvan does not necessarily show a program guide customized for the location, given the aforementioned teachings and suggestions in Istvan. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Appellants do not argue separate patentability for claims 2, 7-31, 33, 34, and 36-55 (see App. Br. 7-11). We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 2, 7-31, 33, 34, and 36-55. Claim 32 Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined cited art teaches/suggests a margin from a nominal time slot, as set forth in claim 32? Appellants contend that "Franco teaches a command to record that specifies a start and end time for a broadcast, but Franco says nothing about specifying a margin in relation to these start/end times" (App. Br. 10). Appellants further contend that "[m]argin is therefore a separate variable from the start and end times" (Reply Br. 5). We agree with Appellants. In response to Appellants, the Examiner interprets "the 'margin' as claimed is 'O' ... indicates that the start and/or the end times of the selected program would be recorded at the start and/or end times of the nominal time slot of the selected television program" (Ans. 31 ). We find that a "O" margin is equivalent to no margin. The ordinary and usual meaning of "margin" is a spare amount or measure or degree allowed or given for contingencies. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, p. 727 (9th Edition 1990). Given that the Examiner's interpretation of a "margin" is contrary to the usual and ordinary meaning of such term, we find that in essence the Examiner is reading the term "margin" out of claim 32. 5 Appeal2015-002255 Application 11/843,036 In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the proposed combination of references set forth by the Examiner does not support the obviousness rejection for claim 32. We, accordingly, do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 32. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claim 32. We affirm the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 2, 7-31, 33, 34, and 36-55. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation