Ex Parte Rosas

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

13415179 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 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.
13/415,179 03/08/2012 Steven Daniel Rosas 1192-009 5647
27820 7590 03/02/2017
WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C.
106 Pinedale Springs Way
Cary, NC27511
EXAMINER
YEN, PAUL JUEI-FU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2116
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
patents @ wt-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN DANIEL ROSAS
Appeal 2016-002862
Application 13/415,179
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1-8 and 10-21, which are all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Bright House
Networks, LLC. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal 2016-002862
Application 13/415,179
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention “relates to device reconfiguration, and in
particular to automatic reconfiguration of a device based on a selected
remote control.” (Mar. 8, 2012 Specification (“Spec.”) 11.) Claim 1 is
illustrative, and is reproduced below:
1. A method for automatically reconfiguring a device
comprising:
making, by the device, a determination that a first remote
control device (RCD) of a plurality of RCDs is selected for use;
accessing, by the device, a first configuration record of a
plurality of configuration records, the first configuration record
corresponding to the first RCD;
determining, based on the first configuration record, a
preferred favorites list identifying a plurality of channels; and
reconfiguring the device based on the first configuration
record by configuring a current favorites list associated with the
device that identifies the plurality of channels based on the
preferred favorites list.
Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal
Mori et al. US 2001/0018737 Al Aug. 30, 2001(“Mori”)
Huber et al. US 2002/0059588 Al May 16, 2002(“Huber”)
Khedouri et al. US 2008/0180401 Al July 31, 2008(“Khedouri”)
Mehta et al.
(“Mehta”) US 2009/0284472 Al Nov. 19, 2009
2
Appeal 2016-002862
Application 13/415,179
Claims 1—8, 10, 12, 13,2 and 15—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huber in view of Mehta. (See October
24, 2014 Final Action (“Final Act.”) 3-7, 10-11.)
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huber in view of Khedouri. (See Final Act. 8-9.)
Claims 11, 19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Huber, in view of Mehta, and further in view of
Khedouri. (See Final Act. 9-10.)
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huber, in view of Mehta,3 and further in view of Mori.
(See Final Act. 11.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, and 10 15
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Huber teaches or suggests
“making ... a determination that a first remote control device (RCD) of a
2 Although the Examiner lists claim 13 as being unpatentable over Huber
(Final Act. 10 11), the Examiner’s analysis includes references to both
Huber and Mehta. Therefore, we find this error to be harmless error.
3 Although the Examiner lists claim 14 as being unpatentable over Huber in
view of Mori (Final Act. 10 11), the Examiner’s analysis includes references
to independent claim 1, which is rejected over Huber in view of Mehta.
Therefore, we find this error to be harmless error.
3
Appeal 2016-002862
Application 13/415,179
plurality of RCDs is selected for use.” (Final Act. 3.) Specifically, the
Examiner finds that “set-top box 34 is programmed to read ID codes for
personalized remotes 20, 22, and 24 to facilitate recognition of current user.”
(Id.) Appellant contends that “Huber is not concerned with which RCD is
utilized; rather Huber is concerned with which user logs onto an RCD.”
(App. Br. 6, emphasis omitted; Reply 2.)
Appellant’s contentions have not persuaded us the Examiner erred.
We agree with the Examiner that “while Huber does disclose user
identification, each user is associated with a specific RCD.” (Ans. 3,
emphasis omitted.) Specifically, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that
Huber teaches or suggests:
each of the remote control devices generates an output signal that
constitutes an identification sequence code; the identification
sequence code is an ID code that is generated by each of the
personalized remotes; the set-top box is programmed to read the
ID codes for each personalized remote to facilitate the
recognition of the current user and to access an information
database that consists of profiles and preferences of each user of
the system, par 28; Fig. 2[.]
(Id.; see Huber 128 (“Each of the remote control devices generates an
output signal 26, 28, and 30, respectively, that constitute both an
identification sequence code and a command sequence. The
identification sequence code is an ID code that is generated by each of
the personalized remotes 20, 22, and 24 and is appended to the various
commands that are generated by the user by pressing the buttons on
the remote control device. The set-top box 34 is programmed to read
the ID codes for each personalized remote to facilitate the recognition
of the current user and to access an information database 38 that
consists of profiles and preferences for each user of the system.”).)
4
Appeal 2016-002862
Application 13/415,179
Moreover, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner’s interpretation
of the term is overly broad or unreasonable. We agree with the
Examiner that the “claims as written do not provide a distinction
between RCDs associated with individual users and RCDs that are
distinguished by other means. Rather, the claim merely requires
‘making, by the device, a determination that a first remote control
device (RCD) of a plurality of RCDs is selected for use.’” (Id.)
Appellant further contends that “Huber contains no examples of
reconfiguring a device to facilitate the manner in which a user
interacts with the device; rather, Huber is focused on ensuring
appropriate content is provided to the logged-in user.” (App. Br. 6.)
We agree with the Examiner that the “claims as written do not provide
a limitation for ‘reconfiguring a device to facilitate the manner in
which a user interacts with the device’” and we decline to read such a
limitation into the claims. (Ans. 4.)
Appellant contends that “it is erroneous to suggest that one skilled in
the art would be motivated to modify the system in Huber, which is focused
on restricting access, to provide a favorites channel list, which is not only
unrelated to restricting content, but which may be inconsistent with that
goal.” (App. Br. 7; Reply 2-3.) Appellant has not persuaded us of
Examiner error. Here, we find that the Examiner has articulated reasoning
with a rational underpinning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention would combine Huber and Mehta. (Final Act. 4
(“It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the
teachings of Huber and Mehta before him at the time of invention, to
incorporate the generation of a favorites list as taught by Mehta into the
5
Appeal 2016-002862
Application 13/415,179
method as disclosed by Huber, as configuration of the remote control device
through a network server allows for configuration of the programming guide
of a variety of media providers.”).) See KSR Int’l Co., v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 415, 418 (2007). Specifically, the combination is nothing more
than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions. See KSR at 417 (pointing out that an improvement that is nothing
more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions is likely to be obvious). Moreover, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Huber is not solely focused on restricting access.
(Ans. 4 (“Huber states, ‘The STB then can enhance and/or restrict the
displayed content based on the user profiles and preferences that correspond
to the personalized remote 20, 22, or 24’.” {Id. at 4-5 (citing to paragraphs
28 and 43 of Huber).).)
Appellant further contends that “[njowhere does Huber teach or
suggest the use of a favorite list” because “paragraph 0043 of Huber appears
to describe how the set-top box determines the entire collection of
programming that would be available to a user.” (Reply 2-3.) We
disagree. The Examiner does not rely on Huber to teach a favorites list. As
discussed above, the Examiner is “incorporate[ing] the generation of a
favorites list as taught by Mehta into the method as disclosed by Huber.”
(Final Act. 4.)
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1. Appellant does not make any separate, substantive
patentability arguments regarding dependent claims 3-5, 7, 8, and 10-15, but
Appellant instead relies solely on the arguments advanced with respect to
6
Appeal 2016-002862
Application 13/415,179
claim 1. (App. Br. 11.) Therefore, we also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of claims 3-5, 7, 8, and 10-15.
Claims 2, 17, and 21
Claim 2 further recites “making the determination that the first RCD
of the plurality of RCDs is selected for use comprises receiving a signal
from the first RCD identifying the first RCD,” and claims 17 and 21 recite
similar limitations. Appellant contends that “[ajnother substantial
distinction between the present embodiments and the system disclosed by
Huber is that Huber is based on user identification, while certain of the
present embodiments are based on RCD identification.” (App. Br. 7-9,
emphasis omitted.) This argument is similar to the argument addressed
above regarding claim 1. As explained above and for the reasons stated
above and in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 8), Appellant’s contentions have
not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims and we
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 2, 17, and 21.
Claim 6
Claim 6 further recites “wherein accessing the first configuration
record of the plurality of configuration records comprises obtaining the first
configuration record from a remote storage via a network.” The Examiner
finds that:
Huber discloses wherein accessing the first configuration record
of the plurality of configuration records comprises obtaining the
first configuration record from storage. Mehta further discloses
remote storage via a network [remote control device retrieving
data over network (necessarily requires remote storage for the
data to be retrievable over the network), par 32,11. 4-10].
(Final Act. 5, emphasis added.) Appellant contends that “Mehta discloses
that the RCD (not the set top box) can communicate with a server.” (App.
7
Appeal 2016-002862
Application 13/415,179
Br. 9.) Therefore, according to Appellant, Mehta does not teach or suggest
the set top box (i.e., the device) retrieving records from a remote storage via
a network. Although we agree with Appellant that claim 6 requires the
device (and not the remote) to “obtain[] the first configuration record from a
remote storage via a network,” Appellant’s contentions have not persuaded
us that the Examiner has erred. We understand the Examiner’s rejection to
mean that Mehta teaches or suggests obtaining a record from a remote
storage via a network while Huber teaches or suggests a device “accessing
the first configuration record of the plurality of configuration records” from
a storage. Therefore, Mehta is only being relied on for the disclosure of
configuration records being stored in a remote storage and accessible via a
network.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 6. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 6.
Claims 16 and 18
Claim 16 recites, in part, “determine, based on the first configuration
record, a subset of preferred applications from a plurality of applications;
and effect presentation of the subset of preferred applications on a display.”
The Examiner points to step 184 of Figure 9 of Huber for these limitations.
(February 4, 2015 Advisory Action 2.) Appellant contends that Huber does
not disclose any applications explicitly and step 184 of Figure 9 does not
mention applications. (App. Br. 9-10.)
Figure 9 of Huber is reproduced below.
8
Appeal 2016-002862
Application 13/415,179
iTB RECEIVES COMBINED
ID SEQUENCE AND
COMMAND SEQUENCE
170
ACCESS NEW USER DEFINED PREFERENCES
AND INTERFACE WITH NEW USER PROFILE
▼ —:
ACCESS OFFERED
SERVICE DESCRIPTORS
178
COMPARE USER DEFINED PREFERENCES
AND OFFERED SERVICE DESCRIPTORS
(TAOS, CHANNELS, ETC.}
180
GENERATE TABLE OF VALID SERVICES
AND RESTRICTED SERVICES J
GENERATE TABLE OF ENHANCEMENTS BASED
ON VALID AND RESTRICTED SERVICES
182
184a
USE TABLE OF VALID, RESTRICTED SERVICES AND TABLE
OF ENHANCEMENTS AND RESTRICTED SERVICES TO DISPLAY!
PROGRAMS, PROGAM GUIDE.VIDEO SEGMENTS AND OTHER
OFFERED SERVICES THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR THAT USER
IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMAND SEQUENCES
I 186
iSELECT VIDEO .... }J
FIGURE 9
Figure 9 of Huber depicts “a flow diagram of typical functions that may be
performed by a set-top box.” (Huber 143.) Step 184 of Huber discloses a
set of valid and restricted services, such as “programs, program guides,
video segments, and other offered services’’ that may be offered to the user.
{Id., emphasis added; Ans. 10.) Hence, the Examiner’s finding that Huber
teaches or suggests, to one of ordinary skill in the art, offering applications
to the user is reasonable. (Ans. 10.) Moreover, paragraph 43 of Huber
states that the “offered service descriptors may comprise rating information,
tags, channel information, and other information that may relate to user
9
Appeal 2016-002862
Application 13/415,179
preferences that describe the content of the services that are being offered.”
These are the types of information that an application would use and it is not
inconsistent with the limited discussion of applications in Appellant’s
Specification. (See Spec. 129.) Therefore, Appellant has not persuaded us
of Examiner error.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 16 and sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 16.
Appellant does not make any separate, substantive patentability arguments
regarding dependent claim 18 but instead relies solely on the arguments with
respect to claims 1 and 16. (App. Br. 5-7, 9-10.) Therefore, we also sustain
the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 18.
Claims 11, 13, 14, 19, and 20
Appellant does not address dependent claims 11, 13, 14, 19, and 20 in
the briefs. As such, for the foregoing reasons, we also sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejections of claims 11, 13, 14, 19, and 20.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-8 and 10-
21.
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
10