Ex Parte Sue

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2014

11782576 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2014)

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.
11/782,576 07/24/2007 Ranny Q. Sue PD-207040 7810
20991 7590 03/24/2014
THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC.
PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION
CA / LA1 / A109
2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
EXAMINER
RYAN, PATRICK A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2014 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 RANNY Q. SUE
____________________

Appeal 2011-007628
Application 11/782,576
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-007628
Application 11/782,576

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-17 and 19-35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim(s)
Exemplary claims 1, 2, and 12 under appeal read as follows (emphasis
added):
1. A method comprising:
communicating content to a storage device from a content
processing system;
generating a control command comprising a content action
code;
generating a conditional access packet comprising the control
command;
communicating the conditional access packet to a storage
device;
receiving the content and the conditional access packet; and
immediately controlling the storage device to manage the
content in response to the content action code of the control command
of the conditional access packet.

2. A method as recited in claim 1 wherein controlling the
storage device comprises ending receiving the content.

12. A method as recited in claim 1 further comprising
determining an error in transmission and generating the conditional
access packet in response to determining the error.

Appeal 2011-007628
Application 11/782,576

3
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1-17 and 19-35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Watson (US 2004/0133923 A1).
1

Appellant’s Contentions
1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
because:
The Examiner cites the Watson reference, paragraphs 197-204
for generating a control command comprising a content action
code. The Examiner then also refers to paragraphs 14, 121,
181 and 183. After reviewing the Watson reference, Appellant
admits that metadata is described in several places throughout
the Watson reference. There are different types of metadata,
such as software metadata and movie metadata. The movie
metadata is specifically described in various places including
paragraphs 14 and 182. The Examiner is also directed to
paragraphs 185-192. Paragraphs 185-192 describe metadata
processing. In particular, paragraph 192 describes movie
metadata that consists of a keep until date which is provided for
in line 6 of paragraph 192. The last four lines of paragraph 192
describe a keep until attribute which is the date until which the
movie should not be considered for deletion. The paragraph
goes on to describe that the date should be ignored if the date is
after the ending contract or the scheduled date. Thus, it appears
that the movie metadata date and the software within the box
control the storing or deletion of the movies. The software
checks the date in the metadata and deletes the movie when the
date is reached. However, the metadata is not a control
command that is communicated by a conditional access

1
Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13-17, 19, 21, 23-29, and 31-35 are argued as a first
group. We treat claim 1 as representative. Claims 2, 4, 20, and 22 are
argued as a second group. We treat claim 2 as representative. Claims 12
and 30 are argued as a third group. We treat claim 12 as representative.
Except for our ultimate decision, claims 3-11, 13-17, and 19-35 are not
discussed further herein.
Appeal 2011-007628
Application 11/782,576

4
packet to perform immediate control of a user device. Watson
does not describe any immediate action as recited in claim 1.
The box in Watson merely waits until the specified time in the
metadata to perform the deletion. The control command is used
to provide immediate control to manage the content in response
to the content action code.
(Br. 4-5)(emphasis added).
2. Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 2 because:
Claim 2 recites that the controlling step ends receiving the
content. The Examiner points to various paragraphs including
paragraph 14, 192 and 199-202. Paragraph 14 describes
metadata which Appellant respectfully submits is not the same
as a control command in a conditional access packet.
Paragraph 192 describes the leading content but does not
describe ending the receiving of the content. Likewise,
paragraphs 199-202 also provide some type of metadata. The
metadata is received for the content. This claim highlights a
major distinction between the Watson reference and claim l.
The metadata is received with the content in the Watson
reference. Therefore, the metadata cannot control the ending of
the receiving of the content as can be performed by the
recitations of claim 2.
(Br. 7).
3. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
12 because:
Claim 12 recites determining an error in transmission and
generating the conditional access packet in response to
determining the error. The Examiner points to paragraphs 89
with further reference to paragraphs 12, 173 and 238 for this
teaching. Paragraph 89 teaches that a movie should not show
up in the user interface until the TAR file is complete and has
no data errors, and the movie MPEG files for the movies video
and the preferred audio language have less than the maximum
Appeal 2011-007628
Application 11/782,576

5
acceptable errors. Thus, it is clear that the Watson reference
does determine some type of error.
(App. Br. 8).
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-17 and 19-35 as being
anticipated because Watson fails to teach the argued limitations?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
As to Appellant’s above contentions 2 and 3 covering claims 2, 4, 12,
20, 22, and 30, we agree with Appellant’s arguments.
As to Appellant’s above contention 1, we disagree. The Examiner’s
Final rejection explicitly states that “Watson teaches”:
immediately controlling the storage device to manage the
content in response to the content action code of the control
command of the conditional access packet (performance of
decryption of movie content and other conditional access
functions, such as automatically deleting content from set-top
box, as disclosed in Paragraph [0121,0181-0183]; with further
reference to Paragraphs [0014,0058,0192,0200,204]).
(Final Rej. 5)(emphasis added). Although Appellant argues and we agree
that Watson’s deleting is not immediate, Appellant does not argue this
limitation as to the “other conditional functions” cited in the rejection.
Paragraph 0014 states in-part: “A movie may arrive and be stored in the set-
top box, however it may have a start date associated with it which does not
allow it to be viewed until that date.” Control of the storage device to
preventing viewing before the start date is conditional and is immediate. We
agree with the Examiner that the Watson reference anticipates claim 1.
Appeal 2011-007628
Application 11/782,576

6
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 2, 4, 12, 20, 22, and 30 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
(2) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13-17, 19,
21, 23-29, and 31-35 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
(3) On this record, claims 2, 4, 12, 20, 22, and 30 have not been
shown to be unpatentable.
(4) Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13-17, 19, 21, 23-29, and 31-35 are not
patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 4, 12, 20, 22, and 30 are
reversed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13-17, 19, 21, 23-29,
and 31-35 are 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-IN-PART

ELD