INTERDIGITAL MADISON PATENT HOLDINGS, SAS

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 18, 2022

2021001821 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2022)

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. 15/516,755 04/04/2017 Arnaud RETUREAU ICUS_2014P00142WOUS 5875 15800 7590 03/18/2022 Condo Roccia Koptiw LLP 1800 JFK Boulevard Suite 1700 Philadelphia, PA 19103 EXAMINER TAN, DAVID H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2171 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/18/2022 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 ARNAUD RETUREAU and SAMIR AHMED Appeal 2021-001821 Application 15/516,755 Technology Center 2100 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-4, 6-9, 13-19, 21-24, and 27-30, which are all the claims under consideration.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as INTERDIGITAL MADISON PATENT HOLDINGS. Appeal Brief filed September 9, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”) at 3. 2 Appellant cancelled claims 5, 10-12, 20, 25, and 26. Appeal Br. 17, 19, 20. Appeal 2021-001821 Application 15/516,755 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Summary According to Appellant, the subject matter of its application generally relates to “electronic program guides [(“EPG”s)] that display recommendations for media services from broadcast content delivery services and special content delivery services.” Spec. 1:6-7.3 In particular, Appellant describes an EPG that displays recommended media assets available from both broadcast content delivery services and from special content delivery services along a grid having a first axis. Id. at Fig. 12. Exemplary Claim Claims 1 and 16 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized and annotated with bracketed letters for reference to the limitations, exemplifies the claimed subject matter: 1. A method, comprising: [(a)] providing a user with recommendations of media assets available during a plurality of time periods from a first at least one broadcast content provider and a first at least one special content provider in accordance with a user profile; [(b)] generating for display a grid having a first axis and a second axis, the first axis for identifying the recommended media assets and the second axis identifying respective times when the recommended media assets are available; [(c)] providing along the first axis the first at least one broadcast content provider and recommended media assets 3 In addition to the Appeal Brief noted above, we refer to: (1) the originally filed Specification filed April 4, 2017 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action mailed April 16, 2020 (“Final Act.”); and (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed November 10, 2020 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2021-001821 Application 15/516,755 3 available from the first at least one broadcast content provider during a first time period from the plurality of time periods; [(d)] providing along the first axis the first at least one special content provider and recommended media assets available from the first at least one special content provider during the first time period from the plurality of time periods; [(e)] and providing along the first axis a second at least one special content provider and recommended media assets from the second at least one special content provider available during a second time period which is different from the first time period from the plurality of time periods, wherein the second at least one special content provider is displayed in an order in accordance to a ranking of the recommended media assets available during the second time period. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES AND REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 1-4, 6-9, 13-19, 21-24, and 27-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Kashyap et al. (US 2011/0214147 A1, published Sept. 1, 2011) (“Kashyap”), Anthru et al. (US 2012/0221645 A1, published Aug. 30, 2012) (“Anthru”), and Hamano et al. (US 2010/0333137 A1, published Dec. 30, 2010) (“Hamano”). Final Act. 3-21. OPINION We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in view of Appellant’s arguments and evidence. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2020). For the reasons set forth below, Appellant does not persuade us that the Examiner errs in rejecting the claims as obvious. Appeal 2021-001821 Application 15/516,755 4 The Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Kashyap, Anthru, and Hamano to reject exemplary claim 1. In particular, the Examiner finds Kashyap teaches or suggests “providing along the first axis the first at least one broadcast content provider and recommended media assets available from the first at least one broadcast content provider” and “providing along the first axis the first at least one special content provider and recommended media assets available from the first at least one special content provider,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4-5 (citing Kashyap ¶¶ 22, 24, 44, Fig. 4.). The Examiner determines that motivation existed to apply the teachings of Anthru and Hamano to Kashyap. Id. at 6-7. Appellant argues “independent claim 1 is patentable over Kashyap” because: Specifically, Kashyap creates a listing of suggested content and programming by generating rankings of previously viewed or accessed content. Referring to Kashyap at FIG. 4, there is only depicted a static list of ranked suggested content and programming for a list of content providers for a time period 8- 9:30 (see, Kashyap at FIG. 4). In contrast, the present disclosure teaches providing recommendations in accordance with a user profile and generating a grid where on one axis program information related to at least one broadcast content provider and at least a first and a second special content provider are displayed and on the other axis time periods for the program information is displayed. Appeal Br. 10. Thus, we understand Appellant to argue that the Examiner errs in finding Kashyap teaches providing recommended media assets available from at least one broadcast content provider and at least one special content provider. We find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive for several reasons. Appeal 2021-001821 Application 15/516,755 5 Figure 4 of Kashyap shows an electronic programming guide and is reproduced below with annotations added. Figure 4 of Kashyap shows an electronic program guide having broadcast channel content such as “Good Morning America [ABC]” and “Deep Space Nine (WOR)” provided along a first (Y) axis. Figure 4 also shows recorded content located on a user’s DVR, i.e., “Golf from St. Andrews (DVR).” The recorded content is also provided along the first (Y) axis at row number four. Kashyap further discloses that the “presentation of information 400 in FIG. 4 accounts for various content that can come from both broadcasted and non-broadcasted (on demand content, recorded content on a storage medium, and the like).” Kashyap ¶ 44. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the content displayed on Kashyap’s EPG, as discussed above, teaches program information related to at least one broadcast content provider and at least a first special content provider, respectively. Final Act. 4-5 (citing Kashyap Fig. 4). Appellant, in turn, fails to specifically address the Examiner’s findings. That is, rather than presenting arguments pointing out with particularity how limitations (c) and (d) are distinguishable over Kashyap, Appeal 2021-001821 Application 15/516,755 6 Appellant merely summarizes Kashyap, paraphrases the claim language, and concludes that “independent claim 1 is patentable over Kashyap.” Appeal Br. 10. Such a conclusory assertion, however, amounting to little more than a summary of Kashyap, a paraphrasing of the claim language, and a general denial, is unpersuasive to rebut the Examiner’s findings. Also, to the extent Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 10) that Kashyap fails to teach program information related to a second special content provider, as recited in limitation (e), this argument in not responsive to the rejection because the Examiner relies on Anthru, rather than Kashyap, to teach this limitation (Final Act. 6 (citing Anthru ¶ 84, Fig. 10)). Next, Appellant reproduces limitations (b), (c), (d), and (e) of claim 1 in italics and argues that “Kashyap is silent with respect to” these limitations. Appeal Br. 9-10. There are two problems with this argument. First, the Appeal Brief does not make a specific, evidence-based argument on the merits, but rather repeats the claim and concludes, based on Appellant’s summary of Kashyap, that “Kashyap is silent with respect to” these limitations. Id. With such a vague portion of the claim disputed such that Appellant declines to point out which specific limitation Kashyap allegedly fails to teach, we are at a loss to parse Appellant’s argument. It is Appellant’s responsibility to persuade us of Examiner error, and when Appellant’s argument does not point specifically to any error, we are constrained to affirm. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (approving of “the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”); see also Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1250 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“A skeletal ‘argument’, really nothing more than an assertion, Appeal 2021-001821 Application 15/516,755 7 does not preserve a claim. . . . Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”) (quoting United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)). The second problem with this argument relates to the first. Namely, Appellant’s argument, even if it were supported by evidence, does not address the actual reasoning of the Examiner’s rejection. Appellant, instead, argues Kashyap alone when the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Kashyap, Anthru, and Hamano to teach or suggest limitation (e), for example. Final Act. 6-7. For the reasons discussed, Appellant has not persuaded us of reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, as well as the rejection of independent claim 16 and dependent claims 2-4, 6- 9, 13-15, 17-19, 21-24, and 27-30, which Appellant does not argue separately with particularity. See Appeal Br. 14 (“independent claim 1 is patentable over Kashyap, Anthru and Hamano. Furthermore, the same reasoning and conclusion also applies to independent claim 16, which recites analogous and/or complementary language and is patentable over Kashyap, Anthru and Hamano.”). CONCLUSION We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6-9, 13-19, 21- 24, and 27-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2021-001821 Application 15/516,755 8 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-4, 6-9, 13-19, 21-24, 27-30 103 Kashyap, Anthru, Hamano 1-4, 6-9, 13-19, 21- 24, 27-30 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED