Ex Parte Sue et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2014

11782554 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 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.
11/782,554 07/24/2007 Ranny Q. Sue PD-207043 7767
20991 7590 10/01/2014
THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC.
PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION
CA / LA1 / A109
2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
EXAMINER
ZHONG, JUN FEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2014 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 and XAVIER D. RILEY

____________

Appeal 2012-003115
Application 11/782,554
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JASON V. MORGAN, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-003115
Application 11/782,554

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–17 and 34–42. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a content management
system generating a first content list for the first content delivery network
and generating a second content list for the second content delivery network.
A content distribution system communicates with the content management
system and the first content delivery network and the second content
delivery network. The content distribution system transfers content to the
first and second content delivery network from the content repository.
Abstract.
Independent claim 34, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
34. A communication system comprising:
a first content delivery network for a first type of user device;
a second content delivery network for a second type of user device
different than the first content delivery network;
a content repository communicating with the first content delivery
network and the second content delivery network, said first content in a first
format associated with the first network and a second content associated
with the second network;
Appeal 2012-003115
Application 11/782,554

3
a content management system generating a first content list for the
first content delivery network and generating a second content list different
than the first content list for the second content delivery network;
a content distribution system communicating with the content
management system and the first content delivery network and the second
content delivery network, said content distribution system transferring
content to the first and second content delivery network from the content
repository, the content delivery network publishing the content according to
a publication start time;
said first content delivery network communicating the first content list
to a first user device; and
said second content delivery network communicating the second
content list to a second user device.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1–9, 11, 14–15, 17, and 34–41 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ellis (US 6,774,926 B1; Aug.
10, 2004) in view of Johnson (US Pub. 2005/0216952 A1; Sep. 29,
2005).
2. The Examiner rejected claims 10, 12–13, 16, and 42 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ellis in view of Johnson further in view
of Katz (US 2007/0011709 A1; Jan. 11, 2007).

ISSUE
The issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Ellis and Johnson teaches the limitations of
Appeal 2012-003115
Application 11/782,554

4
a content management system generating a first content list for
the first content delivery network and generating a second
content list different than the first content list for the second
content delivery network; . . . said first content delivery
network communicating the first content list to a first user
device; and said second content delivery network
communicating the second content list to a second user device.

as recited in claim 34.

ANALYSIS
Claims 34–41
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Rejection and the
Answer and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants argue that Johnson fails to teach a second content list
(App. Br. 6–7). Appellants particularly argue that Johnson’s filtered listing
is generated by the sink component 12 associated with the presentation
device 14, and not server 20 (App. Br. 7). Appellants assert that this is
different than what is required in claim 34, which is the content management
system communicating the content to the first and second user devices (App.
Br. 7). Appellants further argue that Johnson does not teach delivering the
list through a content delivery network, let alone two different content
delivery networks for delivering each of the different contest lists
respectively (App. Br. 7).
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. At the outset we note the
Examiner relied on Ellis, not Johnson, for the findings of two different
content delivery networks delivering each of the different contest lists
respectively. “[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
Appeal 2012-003115
Application 11/782,554

5
individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of
references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner relied on Ellis (Ans. 7) for teaching a first content
delivery network (e.g., wireless) for a first type of user device (e.g.,
communication path 44 communicates with a cellular telephone 42; Ellis
Fig. 1) and a second content delivery network (e.g., wired) for a second type
of user device different than the first content delivery network (e.g.,
communication path 46 communicates with user equipment 34, 36; Ellis Fig.
1) (see also Ellis col. 2, l. 65–col. 3, ll. 17, 55–61 ).
Our reviewing Court noted that the Specification is always highly
relevant to the claim construction analysis, and it is the single best guide to
the meaning of a disputed term. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). We turn to Appellants’ Specification to construe the
term “content management system” for generating a first and a second
content list. Appellants pointed us to paragraph 30 of their Specification,
which is silent as to the structure that constitutes “content management
system” but describes the function of communicating lists either via network
132 or satellites 106, 108 (App. Br. 4). Appellants directed us to paragraphs
46 and 77 for the content distribution system transferring content to the first
and second content delivery networks (App. Br. 4). Appellants’ paragraphs
46 and 77 describe again distribution of the content via different types of
communication.
Thus, the Examiner’s finding of Ellis teaching generating the content
of schedules (i.e., content lists) (Ellis col. 5, ll. 6–5) and then distributing the
content by different content delivery networks (i.e., wired or wireless) to
different devices (i.e., television or cellular phone) (Ellis col. 4, l. 19-col. 5,
Appeal 2012-003115
Application 11/782,554

6
l. 5) meets the disputed limitations. In particular, Ellis’s first content
delivery network communicating the first content list to a first user device
(e.g., distributing program schedule information from data storage facility 52
to a cellular telephone 42 via wireless path 44; Fig. 1) and a second content
delivery network communicating the second content list to a second user
device (e.g., distributing program schedule information from data storage
facility 52 to user equipment 36 via wired path 46; Ellis Fig. 1) teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations. See Ans. 8; Ellis col. 4, l. 19-col. 5, l. 15;
col. 8, ll. 36–67.
We also agree with the Examiner’s findings that because the lists go
through different type of formatting for the different devices in Ellis,
different content lists are created necessarily for a television versus a cellular
telephone (see Ans. 15-16). We also agree with the Examiner’s reliance on
Johnson for the explicit teaching of different listings being created based on
the format of the data and the presentation device (Ans. 16; Johnson ¶ 73).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument regarding Johnson not
communicating the content list via a network and processing of the listings
at the device itself rather than at a server (App. Br. 7). “The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference …. Rather,
the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981). Accordingly, the Examiner correctly relied on Johnson’s
teaching of creating different content listings based on the formatting and the
type of device.

Appeal 2012-003115
Application 11/782,554

7
Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claim 34 and for the
same reasons the rejections of claims 35–41 for which no additional
arguments of patentability were made (see App. Br. 8).
Claims 1–9, 11, 14–15, and 17
Appellants assert that the limitations of claim 1 are similar to those of
claim 34 and thus, the same arguments apply. Accordingly, we also affirm
the rejections of claim 1 and the rejections of claims 2–9, 11, 14–15, and 17
for which no additional arguments of patentability were made.
Claims 10, 12–13, 16, and 42
Appellants did not present any additional arguments with respect to
claims 10, 12–13, 14–15, and 17 (App. Br. 9), and thus, we also affirm the
rejections of these claims for the same reasons as stated above.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Ellis and
Johnson teaches the limitations of
a content management system generating a first content list for
the first content delivery network and generating a second
content list different than the first content list for the second
content delivery network; . . . said first content delivery
network communicating the first content list to a first user
device; and said second content delivery network
communicating the second content list to a second user device.

as recited in claim 34.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–17 and 34–42 is affirmed.
Appeal 2012-003115
Application 11/782,554

8
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

dw